The GOP Convention thus far from my eyes
Even being shortened by a day, the GOP convention was more conventional than the Dem Convention. I think my Dem friend who said the Dem’s were all about unity probably explains the difference.
Did anyone notice that the most common cheer at the GOP convention was “U-S-A, U-S-A” while the Dem’s was “OBAMA, OBAMA”?
Harry Reid is not having a good week. First, Joe Lieberman. Second, Sarah Palin. Harry lost it when asked for a reaction to Palin’s speech, Reid characterized it as ”Shrill”. Campbell Brown’s and Gloria Berger (CNN) reaction to the description: “never heard “shrill” applied to a man” and warned the Democrats to be careful.
Sarah Palin threw some real punches. And, the Obama surrogates looked like “deer in headlights.” Did they expect her to be a demure beauty queen speaking in polite bromides? Note that the Obama had virtually no surrogates clamoring to speak afterwards and they have been noticeably quiet thus far today. I think they are “tweaking” their strategy and Palin has been a game changer at least from a strategy perspective.
Dem’s spin makers seem to be comfortable dissing small town America as a way to diminish Palin. This despite CNN’s John King’s swing state analysisthat the real battle ground is the rural areas where Clinton trounced Obama.
Press seems to be getting sensitive to the attacks on bias. CNN’s Anderson Cooper pointed out to their colleagues that not once did they reference the name of Barack’s or Joe’s speechwriter but they did Palins. CNN’s John King chastised Carl Bernstein for his insult by referring to this convention as being dominated by the “extreme right” when nobody on the panel noted the influence of the “left” at the Dem’s convention.
The Dem’s on Larry King predicts that McCain’s speech will be a heavy attack on the person of Obama and promote fear. They seem to expect McCain to try to be Obama (remember Obama mentioned McCain 21 times and made some of the most pointed attacks personally). I think McCain will be McCain and seldom if at all reference Obama personally. To gain the biggest bounce, I believe that McCain needs to give his vision of his Presidency.
Best new “service” provided by MSNBC at the Republican Convention that wasn’t provided at the Democrat Convention: Keith Olberman raising “fact checks” after each Republican’s speech. This was replaced by his consistently “giddy” responses to the Dem’s speech. A close second was Olberman’s repeated reference to Chris Mathews as “friend” (after the embarrassing catfights they had at the Dem Convention) and Chris’ roll of the eyes before speaking.
Best red meat: Rudy. This speech is getting little coverage because of the magnitude of the Palin speech. Extremely effective frontal attack on Obama.
Worst speech: First half of Romney’s. Gives understanding on why he wasn’t picked.
Most useless speech tonight: Huckabee’s. Too much self-deprecation and too much cute humor. Message was good but the humor to me was a distraction from the seriousness of his message. Desk story was good for another setting. Too long for this setting.
Most serious and least partisan speeches: The combo of Meg and Carly. They did a great job of speaking positively about the GOP vision of lower taxes, lower regulation, smaller government and economic freedom as the answer to economic poverty. The gave a good vision of McCain’s economic policies. Their lack of political speaking experience was obvious (Meg looked nervous) and their delivery was pretty corporate. But the substance was deep and concisely focused. I will admit that I’m a real fan of Carly. I watched her maneuvering of the HP purchase of Compaq like a political junkie.
My highlights from the Palin speech (outside of her promotion of McCain sprinkled throughout):
“A writer observed: “We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity.” I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman. I grew up with those people. They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America … who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars. They love their country, in good times and bad, and they’re always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.”
“I might add that in small towns, we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco. ”
“Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America’s energy problems - as if we all didn’t know that already. But the fact that drilling won’t solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.”
“We’ve all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers. And there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.”
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
My wife and I were transfixed in front of the TV last night. Sarah is a game changer, and win or loose, she is a blessing, not just for the Republican Party, but more importantly for our country. She brings spice to the stew, passion for the country, and the exuberance of an optomist and outsider. She knows how to touch the heart-strings — to connect with people where they are at. She will draw the base, independents and some women. She is the picture of success — strong yet feminine, courageous yet compassionate. She is the perfect person to cancel out the Obama-effect.
Here’s a little red meat.
When you cut through the rhetoric, all you have is more of the same–or worse.
Divisiveness: Laud the “honesty, sincerity and dignity” of people in small towns as though those attributes don’t exist in city dwellers and claim Democrats attack small towns when no such attacks are made by any credible spokesperson. Translation: Keep people fighting among themselves over problems that don’t even exist so Republicans politicians can do as they please.
Unbridled nationalism: The chants of USA sound like cheers in a sports arena and belie the us-against-them foreign policy the Bush administration, neocons and far too many in the Republican party promote. They follow the false “Democrats blame America first” theme when in fact we don’t blame America, we blame bad policy instigated by the likes of Bush, Cheney and McCain. Put simply, Republican policies are not America and to blur the distinction between the two is rhetorically dishonest at best. And continuation of a bellicose foreign policy is not in the best interest of the world or America
Fear mongering: Speakers continue to push the notion that only Republicans can keep us safe. What a crock! It was during the Bush administration that 9/11 happened. Our own Tom Daschle had two choices in the aftermath: he could point a finger of blame and politicize the tragedy or he could seek a nonpartisan, unified response. He chose the later which was the correct and decent thing to do. But it let the administration off the hook and Karl Rove, seeing a opening, chose to politicize and claim Democrats were weak on terrorism because they questioned the wisdom of attacking Iraq.
False economics: McCain says he will cut taxes and spending. He may, but if he does, it’s likely he will increase borrowing because the tax cuts will be greater than the spending cuts. In fact, the old “tax and spend” spend criticism of Democrats can legitimately be replaced by “borrow and spend” criticism of Republicans. And with their unceasing efforts to privatize everything from the military to our schools, Republicans are using the good faith and credit of the USA to borrow money and enrich their friends (cronies).
Glad you’re all having a good time!
“claim Democrats attack small towns when no such attacks are made by any credible spokesperson.”
Excuse me–but it was OBAMA who said that small town Americans cling to religion and guns out of bitterness.
So OBAMA is not a credible spokesperson for his campaign?? Oh yeah that IS RIGHT!
“Excuse me–but it was OBAMA who said that small town Americans cling to religion and guns out of bitterness.”
I’m sure that line does bother you, Republicans are used to their people lying to them.
Mom, you can believe Obama was dissing small town folks if you want, but I doubt he was. He was trying to answer a question about why his message of hope and change was not persuasive to more blue collar voters, especially in Pennsylvania. His observation was that they had pretty much lost faith in politicians and instead were clinging to things like guns and religion. While his observation can be interpreted as condescending, it also can be interpreted as empathetic in that put in a similar situation of economic stress and/or hopelessness, Obama could imagine himself reacting in much the same way.
The choice of the word “cling” was unfortunate and feeds into the “elitist” image Republicans wish to impart on Obama. But, it was one word in many spoken through a grueling primary. It hardly constitutes an attack on anyone or anything.
bull. He should never have used those words. He did and he is guilty. Look at his minister, or now in the light of day, former minister.
HELLO and WAKE UP AMERICA
I was disapointed that he disvowed his minister. I think Rev. Wright spoke truth to power. If you watch the entire sermon, you will know Wright was referring to what a WHITE man said. He also talked about the Zionist lobby in Washington that has f’d up our foreign policy direction in the middle east. You should really google the entire sermon. I think Obama owes Wright an apology.
anon 11:53, your words might have credibility if you signed your name.
Your comment about “Republican policies are not America” is a silly comment at best. A more honest statment might be “Republican policies are not me,” or, Republican and Democrat policies ARE America. An honest assessment reveals America is a mixture of diverse people and diverse political beliefs. To suggest otherwise is dishonest.
Just as I thought. McCain would barely mention Obama. I urge you to go back and read Obama’s speech, McCain’s speech, and JFK’s “New Frontiers” speech he delivered @ the 1960 Dem. Conventin. One speech will not fit.
I think the Dem’s appear to have missed the goal of the convention and thus have faulty, ineffective response. They keep harping on “where are the specfics”? It illuminates the fundamental differences between the parties. The GOP doesn’t propose a government program for every problem but sometimes sees the government as the cause. And if the government is required to participate, the call will come from the grass roots and not a fiat from above.
Both Obama and McCain (and surrogates) gave specifics but the Dem’s see reliance on the American people and its many institutions as the heavy lifters as “doing nothing.” For those who still think the Republicans have no specifics, I urge you to read Meg Whitman’s, Carly (I never can spell her name), and McCain’s speech in order given. It is loaded with a framework that will guide the McCain presidency. If you don’t see them, you don’t understand at the economic engine of America and you must obviously believe that government is the source of prosperity.
I think that there was a distinct difference in strategy of each convention.
The Dem’s took a safer approach. The speeches and “specifics” were the same as the Gore and Kerry Conventions. They are betting that the charisma of their candidate will make the difference (which is not irrational).
The Republicans took a more risky approach. They basically abandoned Bush and through him under the bus. McCain dissed his running of the program, the coopting of GOP principles to protect Bush’s errors. and promised to be different. If he can’t convince voters of this, the election is lost and it could be big. But if he wins their trust, the win will be big. Unlike conventional wisdom that the election is Obama’s to win or lose. Now, it is McCain’s to win or lose.
I still have doubts if Palin in the end will be a major influence (for good or bad). But, if it remains close to the end, she will probably be the difference.
The Dem’s response to McCain’s speech was very predictable. No specifics because he didn’t propose national health care. They diss McCain’s summation of his superior and deeper experiences. And, they disregard Palin’s direct and personal experience making real life decisions that affect American’s every day. And they tried to link McCain to Bush (I think this dog won’t hunt but love the Dem’s fidelity to it).
While I predict that McCain will gain more bounce and be ahead going into the remaining days of the convention. But, the lead will be tenuous. The debates will be key.
Fred. My comment isn’t silly when put in context. When Democrats criticize a Republican policy, there is seldom a defense of the policy itself. Instead, Democrats are accused of bashing America, of not putting America first or blaming America first, or whatever.
anon 8:24:
It is silly. Fred pointed it out and you justfied it by casting aspersions again. Your entire post was not a criticism of a single policy but an attack on Republicans personally and then you criticize us for not defending our policies. You are in essence what you accuse Republicans of being. But let me address your points:
Divisiveness: It was not a Republican who singled out rural people for “clinging”. It was your own nominee. Yet you blame us for defending rural Americans.
Unbridled Nationalism: Your opposition to the foreign policies of Republicans is well within your right. But because you disagree with them you take umbrage that we take pride in being Americans? This said I still find it illuminating that Republicans at the convention cheer “U-S-A” while the Democrats favorite cheer at the convention is “OBAMA”. Democracies are not well served by allegiance to the cult of a personality.
Fear Mongering: Republicans believe they have the best policies to keep us safe and that the Democrats policies are dangerous. Democrats feel the opposite. This is an issue in that we are talking about “protection” and not having the right protection engenders fear. Neither party can advocate their position w/o it addressing fear. Frankly, if Democrats can’t take the nature of the discussion, they should get out of the kitchen.
False Economics: There is a great deal of dissatisfaction among many Republicans with regard to Bush only promoting tax cuts while spending like a Democrat. Democrats should be equally disatisfied with the Congressional Democrats only promoting the spending while not raising taxes. Both parties are responsible for the “borrow and spend” situation we are now in. Your sanctimony by claiming that only Republicans do it for cronies ignores that the Democrat special interests eat at least as much at the trough as Republicans (Mayor Dave Munson is an example of a Republican pig). This said, you should take heart that McCain is the leader on ending earmarks. This is where the trough is filled and it must end.
Troy. Let me try to be clear. I am not attacking Republicans personally, only certain Republican policies, campaign strategies and office holders. And there are a good number of rank and file Republicans who would agree with many points I offer.
That Republican political strategy often is to “wrap in the flag” when questioned or criticized is obvious. If you haven’t noticed, your not paying attention. McCain saying Obama would be willing to lose a war to win election, is that not an example of avoiding the true argument by casting aspersions?
Yes, Obama used the word “cling”. As I explained earlier, that doesn’t constitute an attack on rural America. Rather, it was one reason he thought he might not be winning as much support as hoped for in rural areas and he has said his choice of words was unfortunate. But Republican campaign strategists say see, he doesn’t respect rural voters, we’re here to defend you against these scurrilous attacks, vote for us. That is divisive.
It’s obvious you’ve been around politics for awhile Troy. You know all too well that political talking points generally have a subtext. Palin was telling rural voters that she and John McCain are going to stop those condescending, elitist, urban Democrats from ruining their way of life. She was attempting to not only exploit a perceived cultural divide, but to widen it. And that, quite frankly, stinks.
I do not take umbrage at anyone taking pride in being an American. I take umbrage at anyone who posits that they, by virtue of party or philosophy are the only ones who truly take pride in America. Again, the subtext of many a Republican talking point is that only your party loves America and I believe that was the context in which more than one U-S-A chanter raised his of her voice.
You may be right about some O-Bam-A chanters being a bit cult like, but most are simply excited and inspired. Most don’t find John McCain’s speeches to be exciting and inspiring which is certainly no disqualification for the office he seeks. I do, however, find it offensive when the McCain campaign or anyone else mocks Obama for having great gifts of eloquence and charisma as though those are the extent of his virtues.
That said, I respect the fact the John McCain did not feel it necessary to wear a flag pin last night. Neither he, nor anyone else should need a pin to prove love of country or have that love questioned without cause.
Apparently you agree that fear mongering is real, or at least that fear results from telling people they will not be protected if they vote for the wrong candidate or party. But there are ways of discussing these issues without instilling fear and being afraid is not a good emotional state to be in when trying to choose strategies that lessen the chances of attack.
As for economics, we’ve gone from surpluses to the worst deficits in history under the current administration. McCain promise more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans saying he will offset them by cutting spending. Which spending? Earmarks aren’t going to offset cuts and make up the deficits.
I know neither candidate is being very specific in this area. But, it was a Democrat who last balanced the budget and it was a Republican who got us where we are. And when you cut taxes for an income group that by and large supports you and then borrow money to make up for the reduced revenue, you are using the good faith and credit of the USA to enrich your friends–especially the ones who get no-bid government contracts on top of it.
That may be an oversimplification, but it is the gist of what has happened. And, I see no reason to believe a McCain administration would make any significant changes.
Anon,
Read the last four speeches of each night of the Dem. convention and ask yourself: If I were a Republican, would I find these speeches divisive, fear mongering, and false economics. If you don’t, you are only seeing the world through your eyes.
I found the Democrat speeches all those things. Why? I’m a Republican and they are trying to inspire the Democrats to go back home to kick GOP butts. Frankly, I don’t over-react because I understand what they were trying to do. And frankly, any Dem who eats every word as if it is Gospel is an idiot. Same for a Republican.
To a couple of your points:
McCain took a very politically unpopular position in the middle of his campaign. Conventional wisdom was that his race was finished. Its a fact that he risked his campaign for his convictions. If Obama has done such an act, let him tell us about it. Otherwise, accept this just another “character building” experience Obama doesn’t have.
You might have taken no umbrage to the cling statement. Well, it offended me. I’m a rural American, I hunt, and I am religious. And I can find no way to interpret those words said in private to elites from San Francisco in any way but to find it insulting. Now, when I consider the attacks on Sarah being from a rural state, I’m even more offended. Barry said the offensive words that ARE divisive, his explanation was insulting to my intelligence, and he never apologized. He raised the division. Live with it.
If you can find a single person at the GOP who says that the Democrats don’t love America, I’ll chastise them right here in a post at SDWC as well as send a letter to the editor to their home paper. Otherwise, quit promoting innuendo.
Anon, this will offend you. I think Barack Obama has no experience, accomplishments or skills that warrant him being your nominee. He got there because he gives a good speech. I’ve thought it since he shocked me and won Iowa and he has shown me ABSOLUTELY nothing to change my view.
FYI: I have a lot of respect for Joe Biden. He has been an able Senator and statesman. In my view, you have your ticket flipped.
I will give Bill Clinton and the Congress alot of credit for managing the budget in the 1990’s. I chastise the Congress and GWB for their mismanaging the budget in this century. My praise of what happened in the 1990’s is tempered by the perfect economic storm for growth in govt. revenues (a long discussion) for which Clinton gets credit for not messing it up. My criticism of the Bush years is tempered because of the Y2K bubble burst and 9/11 which impacted revenues too. Bush’s greatest failure was what he failed to do the past three years with regard to the budget vs. the unavoidable deficit in his early years. But, let me tell you something. Barry is not Bill. And John is not George. To project Bill’s policy onto Barry is as stupid as projecting George’s policy onto John.
Final comment as it encompasses all your issues.
I find Barack’s tax plan as divisive (appeals to class envy), Obama’s acceptance speech was textbook fear mongering (specifically the paragraphs on “ownership society”, or when he took McCain’s joke about $5mm income is rich and made it sound like it was his view, and every where else he mentions McCain by name), and economic plan the ultimate in phony and false economics (socialism).
My point in all this: When you are on the other side, political arguments feel pretty stinging especially if you are hyper-sensitive. Quit feeling sorry for yourself and sactimonious about your party. See my post on the non-substantial attacks on Palin.
Dam Troy you have a gift, I know I’ve said it before but you brought out alot of the best points.
I really think this speech was a potential game changer. I liked her but was still not sure. We had a group of friends over and talked about the speech afterwards. The women that worked were really excited about her defense of working moms. Maybe stay at home moms may have a different take if they were already leaning towards Obama. But stay at home moms on the fence I think could be energized and empowered by this performance that anthing is possible in this country. My wife for one changed her vote, that was enough for me.