Both Bill Clinton and Bob Dole presented interesting acceptance speeches at
their respective party's conventions. The two speeches possessed a great deal
of similarities, in both principles and ideals.
The fact that both candidates praised their party was overly obvious. In
Dole's speech, he constantly made references to previous Republican presidents,
who brought conservative ideals into successful practice, as well as the
nation's forefathers, who held strong the principles of the constitution, and
those by which this country was founded. Clinton's praise was just as overly
obvious, but he praised the Democratic party by giving them credit for the
legislation that was passed by a Republican congress. Clinton also praised the
idea of a Democratic-majority congress as the answer to the country's
problems, and was met with as healthy an applause as Dole upon his praise for
the Republicans.
As with all campaigns, there was a good deal of mudslinging going on, but
it was utterly one-sided. Dole had a field day in attacking Clinton, not by
personal attacks of Clinton's character as the Democrats claimed, but rather
criticism for Clinton's faulty term of office, and finicky position towards
the important issues. Dole's speech pointed out two very important facts that
seem to govern the Democratic side of elections (Clinton by no means proving
an exception to which): 1) The only way liberals get elected into office is by
pretending they're not liberals, and 2) Clinton's term of office was merely an
act to get reelected, and his shift towards moderate is proof of that. Clinton,
on the other hand, had no material with which to attack Dole, for most of
the praise Clinton was receiving was for the workings of a Republican-
majority congress. Clinton was also beginning to abandon the liberal cause
for favor of a slightly more conservative standpoint in favor of his own
image, so he couldn't bash the Republicans and Dole without bashing himself
(personally I don't know who he thinks he's fooling).
Bill Clinton didn't really predict his victory, he simply threw out ideas
and more bills to spend money on so as to impress the American public. In a
manner of speaking, his tone of speech suggested that he hopes to win, and
that his chances were not nul, but he didn't really believe he was destined
for victory. On the other hand, Dole wasn't predicting his victory in those
exact words, he more or less told America what he is going to do on his first
day of office, and what he will do when he's elected. There were no "ifs" in
his plans for legislation. In fact, there was only one time in Dole's speech
when he said "If I win."
One could easily see how Clinton had a greater appeal to the average
American. His speaking abilities are beyond incredible, and has the ability to
turn lies and politics into patriotism digestible by the average American, the
mark of what most Americans hate about politicians. He also turns out
destructive, unsuccessful, easy answers to solve our nation's problems, for
instance, reviving our economy by raising the minimum wage, and reviving
morale and destroying poverty by diverting more capital towards welfare and
Medicare, all of which sound attractive and pleasing to most Americans that
don't understand the very basic principles of economics and grade-school
history. Worst of all, it appeals to a major influence on the future of
America, our educators, our factory workers, namely teachers' and workers'
unions. Dole, however, seems to appeal to the American with slightly-above
average intelligence: the patriotic American who knows what's been tried
and proven, such as Reagan's supply-side economic program, Nixon's diplomacy,
Bush's combat skill and planning, Locke's philosophy toward government, and
others who, although their foundations lay in the past, are solid foundations
from which to build the bridge to the 21st century, a bridge Clinton wants
to build with no support, no foundations, no onramp. Dole appealed to the
lifeblood of America: its industry and commerce, for that's where the
intellect and educated minds reside, in the intelligence of entrepreneurs and
businessmen, the power of independence, individualism, and the offspring of
opportunity. Most important of all, by appealing to business, it appealed
to the money resulting from American business, the greatest source of money
and economic power in the world.
Clinton immediately began to address the issues and throw out empty
promises for which to persuade the voter. For instance, he proposed a
$1,500 a year tax credit toward college tuition, a scholarship available to
any American seeking a community college tuition, and remove taxes on
college tuition. Staying on the topic of education, he proposed a charter
school system and school choice, as well as more motivation for teachers.
Dole also proposed this legislation, before Clinton's speech, and it is purely
a conservative ideal. How Clinton received an applause from a liberal crowd
for proposing conservative legislation is beyond me. Clinton also proposed
that his "balanced" (and I use that term very loosely) budget be inducted into
legislation, a budget plan that cannot pay for itself, but which he claims will.
If Democrats could balance the budget effectively, then how come they tripled
the deficit under Reagan's economics, which brought in on average $70 billion
more in revenue per year? Dole proposes that a program similar to Reagan's
supply-side economics, a program which cuts income and capital gains taxes by
more than half, letting the American people use more of their hard-earned
money to spend as they please, which Reagan proved actually increases revenue.
Dole also proposes amending the Constitution so that congress is required to
balance the budget, and eliminate deficit spending. He also proposes that
Clinton's negative "tax cuts" (tax increases) be repealed, and replaced with
positive tax cuts. Dole wants to tighten criminal justice, and coincidentally,
so does Clinton. What Clinton doesn't realize is that welfare fraud is as
much of a crime as theft, and the only way to eliminate fraud is to instill
powerful localized government, government closer to those who take
advantage of the government. Aside from that, Dole's tone towards crime was
unforgiving, uncompromising, and harsh, just the way criminals should be
treated. Dole believes in one stand towards crime: obey the law, punish those
who do not. Clinton, on the other hand, seems vague on his stand towards
crime, and doesn't seem to be too pressured or moved by the crime problem,
other than the fact that the topic needed addressing for political use. He
spoke very little on the subject.
Bob Dole's speech was a very motivating and inspiring speech, filled with
promise and substance. It reinforces the conservative ideals that brought this
country to the greatness it is today, and reinstilled hope for the patriotic
through a remarkably positive tone towards his ideals. He caught the
attention of the viewer by telling what he had done for America and its
people, what his predecessors did for America and it's people, and telling what
was wrong with the country, why it was wrong, and what would be done
about it when he is elected into office, following in the footsteps of previous
Republican government officials. The perfection and eloquence with which he
wrote and executed his speech were, in my opinion, unmatched by any politician
in recent years.
Bill Clinton, despite my unremitting disapproval of his presidency and
character, presented a remarkably impressionable speech. His ability to convey
what few personal accreditations he possesses (mostly a result of Republicans
and legislation passed by them) was incredibly impressive for a man of such
weak character. Although he exemplified what most Americans hate
about politicians, he concealed this fact very well by demonstrating the few
positive achievements of the government executed during his term of office,
albeit they were not his to take credit for. He is an incredible speaker, and in
all truth, that is the only redeeming quality of his character, a facet that
has gotten this country into more trouble through the portion of the
American public willing to accept whatever they are told by the president,
be it truthful, or in Clinton's case, just the opposite. There is a saying that
I coined myself, and I believe it fits the situation: don't be so open-minded
that your brain falls out; but by the same token, don't be so close-minded that
not even oxygen gets to it.
Both speeches were equally convincing, but in all truth, Dole's held more
truth. Clinton's speech was a remarkable rip-off of the deeds of his supposed
opposites, but he uses it incredibly well to prey on the gullible. Knowing the
facts ahead of time, it seems only prudent to trust Dole, even though his
credibility cannot be proven. Nevertheless, Dole's positive achievements for
the benefit of the country as a government official far outweighs the best of
ideals presentable by Clinton, and that is that defines a true American, and
the man who presented the better speech. I couldn't of said it better than Rush
Limbaugh who stated on his television program, "I don't believe we need a
president that is just like the people, because that's exactly what we've got
now. Shouldn't the president of the United States of America be someone you
can look up to, someone just a cut above the rest?"
"A government that seizes control of the economy for the good of the people,
ends up seizing control of the people for the good of the economy."
-Bob Dole, Republican presidential nomination acceptance speech
|
Return to Truth is Free