It would appear that GOP has decided that the best defense is offense – and there was plenty of it on hand.
I skipped past the minnows until I got to Mitt Romney.
All I can say is, wow – does he suck.
He's a warm up act, so he wasn't entirely to blame for his flat opener. I'm paraphrasing but it went like this:
Mitt: Thank you.You could see Mitt was hoping for some love – and got polite indulgence. Sadly, that was about as good as it got for him.
[applause]
Mitt: Thank you. I love you guys.
[applause winding down]
Mitt: My wife and I have a special place in our hearts for you. We love you.
[dead silence]
According to Romney, the problem with Washington is that it is far too liberal.
Seriously.
That was his position. The Supreme Court (despite a Bush appointed Chief Justice, and an ironclad conservative block of ScaliaThomas/Alito/Roberts) is too liberal.
After all, the court wanted to give rights to prisoners! My God! Soon they'll be loose in our streets, accosting our children!!
But there was more – and so much worse. Mitt is never convincing – and despite a few zingers, he finished up by essentially saying, "You want crazy! I'm you're man!"
Even David Brooks was incredulous.
Apparently, Romney subscribes to the notion that if you're shot in the head with an arrow, the best advice is to push it all the way through.
Luckily for the GOP, things got better from there.
Romney was followed by Mike Huckabee, who for my money had the best speech of the night. He was the warm up act – so he will get no credit, but there was no other speaker that had veterans wiping tears from their eyes when they finished.
Then came Rudy. His speech was a day late and he came out like a rabid animal. He scored some good hits. The convention partisans were lapping it up, but I can't get past how contemptuous he was. Sneering and snarling throughout – this was a speech for people who want to hate something.
Rudy went to bad places (Obama's voting record – something that McCain is especially vulnerable on) and while he took 15 minutes to mention 9/11, he opened his speech standing in front of a panorama of the current New York skyline.
Say it with pictures, Rudy. Fer cryin' out loud.
Then came Sarah Palin – the woman of the hour. For liberals hoping she'd disgrace herself, this must have been quite a letdown. She did well – a few minor flubs, but had plenty of zingers and all about offense.
Her warm up was the weakest bit of her speech:
After aggrieved cries of "lay off my family" – we were treated to a prolonged introduction of each and every member.
With a family that could have come from central casting, the GOP realized they had a golden opportunity for getting the crowd to say "awwwwww."
Then there was the obligatory "my son, WHO IS GOING TO IRAQ." Yes, Sarah – we've heard. And heard. And heard. It's nice that you want to tell us, too, though.
Then she went back to the theme of the night.
Obama, bad. McCain, good.
She landed plenty of good lines (her comparison of mayor to community organizer was particularly good) and worked hard to establish herself as a working class gal who's on your side.
The partisans were always going to cheer for her, but I imagine we'll see the likes of Peggy Noonan heave a sigh of relief.
Palin came to play – and Biden had best nut up for the Veep debate. There are plenty of holes in Palin's tapestry of snark – but the Dems can't sit back and hope on this one. They're going to have to get busy.
2 comments:
OK, now that both speeches are past, and I'm over my latest bout of strep throat, I'll indulge in writing a few thoughts...after all, you gave me some "homework" after I wrote my thoughts on Obama's speech. :)
First, Palin. Yeah, she did what she had to do to be taken seriously, and after her speech, I kinda got it...before she spoke, I was pretty much dumbfounded. I voted for McCain 8 years ago, I probably considered writing him in four years ago, I was so excited he finally got the nomination...and then he made a VP pick that, for all apparent purposes, pretty much threw the election. Once I heard her speak, I got it...she will help a lot with Middle America, working class...arguably, Reagan Democrats. She has that personal touch that voters, especially Middle America voters, respond to, a la the current President, and she will help in several battleground states - Colorado, Missouri, the Upper Midwest, Virginia, maybe Ohio and Pennsylvania. That being said, it's a lot easier to sound good reading from a prepared speech on a teleprompter than to sound competent in a debate, and that carefully structured speech avoided all the issues that make her the most vulnerable on the issues; I have to think, Democrats noticed. She was a genuine bulldog, as the VP candidate is supposed to be; many of her jabs were cheap shots, but I guess they work. As far as I'm concerned, the speech only avoided a movement to have her replaced as soon as she was nominated; she has a lot more to do to prove she is up to the job.
Now, the fact that she was a bulldog allowed McCain to give a speech that rose above the partisan exchange of jabs. That's what a presidential nominee's speech is supposed to do, so on that ground, I think McCain's speech started on the right track. But, as a commentator on CNN said right after the speech, "well, he won't win on his oratory." I tend to think, after three nominees gave such well-delivered speeches, it may have come off endearing, coupled with his otherwise very genuine presence, but then, I'm definitely biased. It's clear one of his goals was to sound very competent, on top of several issues, and I think, to some extent, he pulled that off...but the price was, to give a long, increasingly boring speech. Of course, the best part of his speech was his personal memories as a POW, and his talk of how that shifted his priorities from self to country, but you had to watch the entire speech to get to that part (I'm betting not everyone did - I actually saw someone right up front, just past McCain, giving a HUGE yawn. People, it's Minnesota, it wasn't even 10 p.m.!!!!) Cliches, yeah, there were a few, but McCain isn't given to Obama's soaring rhetoric, so not that much - his cliches came when he rattled off several obligatory conservative positions on issues. He tried to reach out to the middle, talking about how he has challenged both parties, but I'm not sure if that message really got out amid everything else that was crammed into the speech. So, I guess as a speech, it was OK, maybe a B or a B+.
Now, I have to go to CNN to see if their commentators agree. :)
P.S. - in all, my favorite moment of the convention was yesterday, when a New Yorker nominated an Alaskan in Minnesota for VP...proving, once again, that the world revolves around me. :)
I tried to hang in there for McCain's speech - but I just couldn't do it.
I liked his line about making the authors of earmarks famous "You will know their names" but there was little to write home about.
The NYT pegs the surreal nature of what the GOP is trying with McCain.
"Lets run as the outsiders - even though we're been in power for eight years."
I'm with you - Eight years ago, I might have voted for McCain. I can't stand his views on most of his social issues - but he used to be a lone voice of reason.
He was one of the only senators to speak out against the bandwidth giveaways - network consolidation, and campaign financing. He publicly rebuked the far right and had some worthy things to say about the reining in corporate corruption.
That McCain I had respect for.
But that McCain got beat by Rove/Bush - twice. And it seems clear that this time around - he was going to do what was needed to get the nomination.
Cozying up to extremists like Rev. Hagee - Embracing big oil. Voting the party more and more with each passing year of the Bush presidency.
It's almost like the GOP said they'd withhold their foot soldiers unless McCain kissed their ring.
Eight years ago, McCain might have laid claim to "Maverick" - but those days are G.O.N.E.
There are a lot of press clippings about McCain bucking the Bush agenda, but try to match up those statements with his voting record and you see that the McCain maverick of the last eight years is all talk.
The DTA - McCain's big stand against torture was either a cynical ploy to legalize it - or testimony for how easily McCain can be outmaneuvered by his adversaries.
It's inconceivable that a victim of torture would miss the opportunity to slam the door on US torture. Instead, he pushes and votes for a bill that says the president can decide what is and isn't torture (in secret and at will).
Even if the fix was in, a true maverick would have gone down with the ship. McCain rolled over or got rolled - and that's just shameful.
McCain is probably the only GOP candidate who could run on change - but any reform angle he's pushing is undermined by him having participated so enthusiastically in the policies of the past eight years.
"Only I can fix the mess I helped make!"
If McCain didn't owe Huckabee for legsweeping Romney out of the way- I'd think the GOP is using McCain as a flag of convenience to stay in power.
The Daily Show pegged out the similarities between Bush's speech in 2000 and McCain's acceptance speech (go to about 4:45 in).
We've seen this script before - and last time the candidate didn't even pretend to follow it.
Post a Comment