Tuesday night was a night of heavy hitters at the Republican convention. Independent - some would say traitor - Democrat Joe Lieberman was the obvious star attraction. Getting a member of the opposing party to stand up and condemn their policies and endorse your candidate is always a winner, even if it's a mealy-mouthed endorsement from an unappealing stooge like Joe Lieberman. Yet it turned out that the real star, who upstaged Lieberman in every way, was former Senator and Presidential candidate Fred Thompson.
Thompson's speech was a reminder of why so many of us thought he would make a great presidential candidate; it was a return to form after a campaign in which he disappointed supporters by showing little of the rhetorical brilliance which he exhibited last night. I suspect that Thompson would much rather be making great speeches on behalf of others and talking about issues than promoting himself as a candidate, which he was clearly uncomfortable with during the primaries.
Thompson's disturbing physical resemblance to the great orator William Jennings Bryan was echoed by a similarly effective command of concise but ringing phrases as he got warmed up about two-thirds of the way through the speech and began hammering the Democrats on the issues and laying out simple and undeniable truths which put the lies and spin of the Obama campaign to shame. Thompson even made the irritating new 'Country First' slogan sound authentic and believable, which almost no one else has been able to do.
Consider some of the best points Thompson made. Pay attention. They'll be among the top Republican talking points for the next eight weeks:
"The Democrats present a history-making nominee for president. History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."
This one was a no-brainer. Obama's remarkable experience has always been an issue and even more so now that the Democrats have made the double mistake of acknowledging that it's a problem by putting Biden on the ticket and of attacking Palin on the same issue, opening a door they should have kept closed.
"Apparently they believe that he will match up well with the history-making Democrat controlled congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular congress in our nation's history. Together they would take on these urgent challenges with protectionism, higher taxes and an even bigger bureaucracy. This is not reform and it is not change. It's basically the same old stuff they've been peddling for years."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joanne Huspek
Good dissection of the speech. I missed it, since I was eating dinner at the time.
2 - handyguy
The ever-fabulous Gail Collins said it better than I could:
Did you see Fred Thompson? We had forgotten the electricity that is Fred until his speech on Tuesday, when he railed at the Democrats for overplaying Americans' economic woes. ("Listening to them, you'd think we were in the middle of the Great Depression.")
It was that same instinctive connection to the common man that had caused him to refer to the problems of unemployed Detroit factory workers as something that "you always find in a vibrant, dynamic economy."
3 - Dave Nalle
Collins appears to be an idiot, but she did accidentally speak the truth in the quote you give from an article which is otherwise mostly nonsense.
Thompson WAS electric and was dead on with his comments about the economy and the Democrats misrepresentation of it. Just as he was dead on with his comment about Detroit factory workers, even if it was impolitic.
Clearly Collins would rather have politicians who lie and pander rather than tell the truth.
Dave
4 - handyguy
Calling someone as extraordinarily smart and witty as Gail Collins [a far more interesting and entertaining writer than you or I] "an idiot" says far more about you than about her. You only display your own ignorance, which actually is not usually your style.
5 - RJ Elliott
Dave,
I liked Fred's speech. I also liked McCain's speech. But both speeches looked better on paper than they looked as delivered by the men themselves. (Same with Romney and Lieberman.)
Rudy and Palin, on the other hand, had great delivery. So did Huckabee.
Wednesday night was masterful. Tuesday and Thursday were just okay. And Monday was canceled.
I suspect the GOP will get enough of a bounce out of their convention to at least even this race up in the polls. But I was somewhat disappointed with some of the speeches, at least in terms of their delivery.
Tom Ridge, I heard, was pretty bad, although I didn't see it for myself. And Cindy McCain gave a mediocre speech, although that is certainly forgivable since she simply doesn't give speeches. (This may have been the first big speech of her life.)
Face it: Democrats are much better at talking and demagoguery and pandering than Republicans ever will be. That, coupled with the shamelessly biased media, is the only reason they are competitive, as their ideas are generally unpopular.
6 - Dr Dreadful
Interesting: no articles about McCain's acceptance speech and just - as far as I can see - one solitary comment on it by RJ above.
(That's in the sense of 'the comment above mine' not in the sense of 'God above' - I don't love you that much, Elliott!)
Quite a contrast to the national multiple orgasms which seem to be accompanying Palin's every move, word and deed.
Am I to take it, then, that the Republicans on BC would rather that McCain went away and Palin was at the top of their ticket? ;-)
Or were his words so profound that you're all still digesting them? ;-)
I also liked McCain's speech, although I've only read it on (electronic) paper - haven't yet watched the vid. He made a good solid case for himself and refreshingly eschewed the kind of snide, sarcastic anti-Obama comments that seem to have been the flavor of the week up in St Paul.
My major criticism is that he misrepresented a lot of Obama's platform points, but then what would you expect - Obama did the same thing to McCain last week.
I dunno about that bounce, RJ. The overall impression I get so far is that Republicans were somewhat underwhelmed by the speech. They'd better hope they got a nice bounce from Palin, because it doesn't seem that McCain gave them much to be buoyant about!
7 - Jordan Richardson
Am I to take it, then, that the Republicans on BC would rather that McCain went away and Palin was at the top of their ticket?
So to speak, I'd imagine so.
8 - Silas Kain
Or were his words so profound that you're all still digesting them? ;-)
I can't digest a thing these days. I'm still vomiting over Obama's acceptance speech. That being said, McCain gets a C+ for his speech. I wasn't all that impressed. Obama still scores an A for delivery but an F on substance. I just refuse to listen to Biden speak because nothing he can say will sway me from my personal disdain for the man. Obama had the best speech delivery in this cycle; however, Palin hit a home run being a virtual unknown so she gets an A+++.
9 - handyguy
I actually commmented on the speech last night...I was surprised to be the only one doing so.
Since I know all the Republicans on this site don't want to miss a word I write, ha, here is a replay:
Quite a contrast between the two speeches. [McCain's and Palin's]
McCain's podium charisma is almost nonexistent, and yet many moments of his speech held me and seemed heartfelt and strong. I don't support him for President [because of the Supreme Court, the economy, health care, and his scary militarism], but I think he is a great man.
His speech actually shows up the Palin address for the slick, shallow glitz that it really was. [Surely not his intention.]
10 - Dr Dreadful
A home run, eh? Everyone keeps saying that... in fact, it was predicted that they would even before she spoke.
Are you sure she's a hockey mom?
:-)
11 - Silas Kain
...slick, shallow glitz...
Sorry, I don't buy it. I'd apply those words to the Barack Obama show held in the stadium complete with the fake columns and stage set. This is real life. We've got real problems. Sound bites cannot be accepted when we cast our ballots. I know that most of us just don't seem to have the time to research the candidates and as a result we depend on catch phrases and buzz words to make our decisions. Yeah, we're setting a great example for our kids, aren't we? Our free, democratic society is skating on the thinnest of ice in this age of global warming. Gee, can the fringes on both sides see where I'm going with this or are they just so engrossed in their own drama that they can't see the eroding forest for the trees?
12 - Jordan Richardson
Silas, why are you unwilling to see the Sarah Palin speech and the whole RNC for what it actually was?
You "don't buy" the fact that it was "slick, shallow glitz" and state that you would "apply those words to" the Obama show. "Sound bites cannot be accepted when we cast our ballots," you say.
How can you words have any credibility when you seem to see depth at the RNC when there so clearly was none? It's all a sham, yet you seem to have this refusal to say so.
You say the forest is eroding; I say you're contributing to it.
13 - handyguy
Sound bites cannot be accepted when we cast our ballots.
The Palin speech consisted almost entirely of sound bites. It was designed to be watched in excerpts on newscasts. Sarcasm with a smile. It was well done. But substantive? It wasn't even intended to be.
By the way, the Daily Show's coverage of both conventions has been just brilliant. The segment on why the GOP really chose St Paul [the Larry Craig memorial men's room in the Minneapolis airport] was particularly hilarious. And the clips from the speeches were very skillfully chosen and dissected.
Jon Stewart doesn't hide his leftward bias, which makes him even funnier, but the Dems got their share of pomp-deflating satire too.
All this can still be watched on their web site.
14 - Dr Dreadful
Convention acceptance speeches, by anyone at all, are largely about pumping up the troops rather than detailing policy, but giving Obama an F on substance while praising Palin to the skies is simply ridiculous.
I'm sure I've got better things to do with my time, but how about I analyze the speeches of Obama, McCain and Palin for specifics (i.e. substance).
Remember, I'm talking about specific promises made in their speeches, not whether you think they were lying or whether they're feasible.
Obama's promises:
- tax breaks for companies which invest in jobs at home
- eliminate of capital gains tax for small businesses and start-ups
- cut taxes for 95% of working families
- end Mid-East oil dependence within 10 years
- tap natural gas reserves
- invest in clean coal technology
- look at ways to use nuclear power safely
- assist car companies to produce new, fuel-efficient vehicles and make them affordable
- invest $150 billion in renewable energy, creating 5 million jobs
- invest in early childhood education
- recruit new teachers with improved pay and support
- demand higher standards and accountability in education
- ensure affordable college education for veterans
- lower premiums for those with insurance and access to high-quality coverage for those without
- end discrimination by health insurance companies
- improved sick leave and family leave provisions
- enforce equal pay laws
- end US combat involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan
- direct diplomacy to address Iran and Russia problems
- international partnerships to address global socioeconomic problems
McCain's promises:
- maintain low tax rates and cut them further where possible
- open new markets for goods and services
- cut government spending
- healthcare plan which makes it easy for consumers to find good insurance
- cut business tax rate
- double child tax exemption from $3500 to $7000
- scrap failed government programs
- use community colleges to retrain workers
- financial assistance for workers' loss of pay while retraining
- empower parents to choose children's place of education
- encourage good teachers to remain in profession and retrain bad ones for another profession
- immediate offshore oil drilling
- more nuclear power plants
- development of clean coal technology
- increase use of renewable energy technology
- encourage further development and use of alternative fuel technologies
- comprehensive energy policy creating millions of jobs
- strive to reestablish good relations with Russia while standing firm on aggression
- non-partisan approach to governance
- will invite Democrats and independents to serve in administration
- transparency and accountability
Palin's promises:
- openness to families of special needs children
- new oil pipelines
- build more nuclear plants
- create jobs with clean coal [whatever that means! - DD]
- move forward on alternative energy sources
Now I grant you that Palin did say a lot about her own character and resumé, and that her purpose was more to give a pep talk than a policy speech - but more substance than Obama or McCain? Please.
15 - handyguy
Good job, Doc. You can't vote in US elections, correct? Too bad. You're much better informed than most US voters.
16 - Dave Nalle
Dr.D. Palin is running for Vice President. She doesn't need to have an agenda at all, just a few pet projects. She's there to support and back up the president and maybe have some hobbies. The job is a lot like being First Lady.
Dave
17 - Dr Dreadful
I'm well aware of that, Dave. So why all the hoo-ha?
18 - Silas Kain
How can you words have any credibility when you seem to see depth at the RNC when there so clearly was none? It's all a sham, yet you seem to have this refusal to say so.
Oh both conventions were a sham. The GOP played a great game of playing ignorant to the failures of this Administration. John McCain, hero. Sarah Palin, hockey mom. I'm not that stupid, Jordan. The problem is that media coverage of both events was slanted and I have this thing for underdogs. With the Democrats it was entertainment - a political American idol. With the Republicans it was an infomercial. Tom Bosley couldn't have done better. The bottom line is that we remain clueless because there wasn't substance coming from either side. I was petty clear about that on Dave's radio show last night.
You say the forest is eroding; I say you're contributing to it.
And when I depart this great earth I will return my carcass to the forest's roots to replenish it with my fertilizer in this fragile circle of life.
God, I'm so poetic.
19 - Dave Nalle
I think that's spelled slightly differently, Silas. The first letter and the last three are right, tho.
The point I've got to put out here, to be serious for a moment, is that both parties are diverse. The choice we're really being offered is a choice between the mainstream of the Democrats and a pair of candidates who the mainstream of the GOP were willing to accept under a lot of pressure from factions who wanted reform. They're not the ideal reform candidates, but they are the reform candidates the power brokers could at least live with.
So the GOP is at least offering the promise of some sort of reform. The Democrats are just offering more of the same.
Dave
20 - Jordan Richardson
The problem is that media coverage of both events was slanted and I have this thing for underdogs.
Yep, the media coverage was slanted alright. And when the race is basically 50/50, who's the underdog? Shouldn't you be pulling for a third party?
I was petty clear about that on Dave's radio show last night.
I would have tuned in but I was busy rotating my couch cushions.
21 - Dr Dreadful
So the GOP is at least offering the promise of some sort of reform. The Democrats are just offering more of the same.
Right, Dave! The Democrats are running on a platform of continuing Bush's policies absolutely unchanged! How come I didn't see that before??
[/sarcasm]
22 - Jet
I hope bruised friendships are the only thing to come out of all of this
23 - Jet
"I was busy rotating my couch cushions" Now that's one I'll have to write down and use sometime!
24 - Dan
There sure is a strong perception of liberal media bias. That counts for something. If the frequent perception of bias is always in the same direction, then it kind of tells you that there is something to it even if you somehow don't see it.
Here's a cartoon that is probably only funny if you detect the bias.
It may not be fair to say that John Edwards moral failing got less daylight than Sarah Palin's daughters pregnancy. I don't know. I would think the Edwards story should garner more attention because he was a pontificator. He professed moral superiority. It's all tawdry anyway. I don't care to know the details.
Simple politically correct (anti white guy) bias is suffocatingly prevalent in media. Most people acknowledge it, but analyzing the motivations for it isn't done. It's an ugly thing.
My 14 year old noticed the other day that a nausiatingly frequent public service advertisement against drunk driving featured 4 white guys in the role of drunk drivers while the arresting officers were a black male and a white female.
He wondered about it. I told him it could be possible that it was random, but probably not. We had a talk about group jealousy and social herding. You have to be honest about societal schisms with your children. It's a duty. They trust you for it.
"And when I depart this great earth I will return my carcass to the forest's roots to replenish it with my fertilizer in this fragile circle of life."
no one ever gets out alive, and the planet is doomed anyway. Smell the roses, and swat the insects.
25 - Dr Dreadful
My 14 year old noticed the other day that a nausiatingly frequent public service advertisement against drunk driving featured 4 white guys in the role of drunk drivers while the arresting officers were a black male and a white female.
The one that airs here in California has five or six male drivers (all white) being questioned by exclusively male cops (I think one of the cops is black). It bugs the hell out of me, and I don't think it's just because of the bad acting.