John McCain's rally attenders will be thrilled with McCain tonight, but Obama closed the deal. McCain was a live replay of every "popular" anti-Obama YouTube clip, with only one exception. McCain spontaneouosly mentioned Ayers, Acorn, "spread the wealth," abortion votes, repudiating public spending and town hall debates, and generally snarled and attacked at every possible opportunity. Surely McCain was kicking himself for having previously taken Reverend Wright off the table.
This was, politically, what John McCain had to do. However, it ended up, in my opinion, setting the stage for Obama to politically seal the deal. Obama absorbed every attack with calm and gave the viewing public, often directly to the camera, a reasonable response for every accusation. Now that these topical attacks have finally been lobbed directly from the top toward Obama, there is no more damage that can be done by them and they failed to bring Obama down. They have have now lost their steam, lost their edge.
On substantive issues I think McCain started out very strong on taxes, and I think McCain answered the Supreme Court judicial appointment question very well. On every other question, I think Obama talked substantively (though it was all a repeat) while McCain attacked. At one point, McCain was so eager to get back to attacking Obama that he dismissed the moderator's question with a "yeah" and then spun to resume his own negative attack. For his performance, McCain will be greeted warmly at tomorrow's rally. For Obama's performance, he will be rewarded by remaining ahead in the polls.
With the debates over, McCain must now rely on some outside event or circumstance to swing this election.
Showing posts with label John Mccain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Mccain. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Second Presidential Debate of 2008
Tonight's debate was a dispiriting display. Both candidates spoke rather negatively and gave the same answers I've heard already. When the word "Iran" was mentioned, out came the same answers. Same for "taxes" or "healthcare," etc.
The negativity was no surprise, given the rhetoric of the past week. Sarah Palin has apparently adopted the mission of questioning Barack Obama's character by association and fitness as Commander in Chief, and declared that Obama "is not a man who sees America like you and I see America." Unfortunately, Obama felt the need to respond with a discussion of McCain's Keating 5 scandal. A similar tone dominated the discussion tonight, though no mention was made of any of these specific things that are being discussed in campaign stops. I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to try to evaluate the negativity of each candidate tonight, and I don't have the benefit of a transcript yet so I have scant examples, but McCain's negativity feels more "belittling" to me than Obama's negativity. McCain's worst example that I can remember was during some discussion of an energy bill when McCain jabbed a thumb toward Obama and called him "that one." Just unsettling to me. If I had to scale the negativity, I would score Obama at 4 out of 10 and McCain at 6.
On substance, as I mentioned, I heard nothing new. It seemed to me that on two questions Obama passed McCain by a clear margin. One question that Obama handled with a substantive answer over McCain was the young man who asked about specifics from the bailout bill that would help middle income earners. Obama gave an explanation about the availability of credit that might have actually answered the guy's question. The other question that Obama succeeded on very well was "what will you ask Americans to sacrifice?" McCain proposed a spending freeze and fewer "earmarks." If the earmarks are wasteful, how is that a sacrifice? If spending is out of control, how is a freeze a sacrifice? Obama did not give the full call for sacrifice I think is probably needed, but he at least did answer that we have to conserve resources in our households and our businesses. One other Q&A that stood out to me was once again the "Pakistan" question. Except this time the questioner was very smart, and included "let them go back across the Pakistani border like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?" I have expressed before that I cannot understand why McCain digs in his heels on this issue, and especially tonight in the face of the Cambodia comparison. Very damming of McCain's thought process, in my opinion.
On the non-verbal part of the evening, Bill Clinton can rest easy. He remains the King Of The Town Hall. If you have time, read this amazing account of Clinton and town hall events: "The Visual Byte: Bill Clinton and His Town Hall Meeting Style." Obama's visual performace was not notable, but will also give no one anything to talk about. McCain did pretty well, but sometimes seemed to wander the set. Once he answered a question without raising his microphone. And when Brokaw was ending, McCain walked in front of Brokaw's teleprompter, apparently not aware Tom was reading from it and it threw McCain in a blur in front of the camera. Three small things there, but gave people something to mention.
My "who won" polls have apparently bothered some readers. I guess candidates aren't the only people reluctant to answer a yes or no question. I'm all for nuance, so feel free to give your refined answers.
The negativity was no surprise, given the rhetoric of the past week. Sarah Palin has apparently adopted the mission of questioning Barack Obama's character by association and fitness as Commander in Chief, and declared that Obama "is not a man who sees America like you and I see America." Unfortunately, Obama felt the need to respond with a discussion of McCain's Keating 5 scandal. A similar tone dominated the discussion tonight, though no mention was made of any of these specific things that are being discussed in campaign stops. I'm not sure if it is worthwhile to try to evaluate the negativity of each candidate tonight, and I don't have the benefit of a transcript yet so I have scant examples, but McCain's negativity feels more "belittling" to me than Obama's negativity. McCain's worst example that I can remember was during some discussion of an energy bill when McCain jabbed a thumb toward Obama and called him "that one." Just unsettling to me. If I had to scale the negativity, I would score Obama at 4 out of 10 and McCain at 6.
On substance, as I mentioned, I heard nothing new. It seemed to me that on two questions Obama passed McCain by a clear margin. One question that Obama handled with a substantive answer over McCain was the young man who asked about specifics from the bailout bill that would help middle income earners. Obama gave an explanation about the availability of credit that might have actually answered the guy's question. The other question that Obama succeeded on very well was "what will you ask Americans to sacrifice?" McCain proposed a spending freeze and fewer "earmarks." If the earmarks are wasteful, how is that a sacrifice? If spending is out of control, how is a freeze a sacrifice? Obama did not give the full call for sacrifice I think is probably needed, but he at least did answer that we have to conserve resources in our households and our businesses. One other Q&A that stood out to me was once again the "Pakistan" question. Except this time the questioner was very smart, and included "let them go back across the Pakistani border like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?" I have expressed before that I cannot understand why McCain digs in his heels on this issue, and especially tonight in the face of the Cambodia comparison. Very damming of McCain's thought process, in my opinion.
On the non-verbal part of the evening, Bill Clinton can rest easy. He remains the King Of The Town Hall. If you have time, read this amazing account of Clinton and town hall events: "The Visual Byte: Bill Clinton and His Town Hall Meeting Style." Obama's visual performace was not notable, but will also give no one anything to talk about. McCain did pretty well, but sometimes seemed to wander the set. Once he answered a question without raising his microphone. And when Brokaw was ending, McCain walked in front of Brokaw's teleprompter, apparently not aware Tom was reading from it and it threw McCain in a blur in front of the camera. Three small things there, but gave people something to mention.
My "who won" polls have apparently bothered some readers. I guess candidates aren't the only people reluctant to answer a yes or no question. I'm all for nuance, so feel free to give your refined answers.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
First Presidential Debate of 2008
After a tumultuous week, the debate was almost anti-climactic. The events of the week will be remembered long after what was said or done at the debate. From the previous debates by Obama and McCain in their primaries, I expected McCain to "win" in the eyes of the viewing public. McCain's usual performance of short, directive answers plays better than Obama's usual nuanced and longer answers. However, every poll on Saturday morning shows people believe Obama "won" the debate (not counting online polls like mine - unscientific but vote anyway!).
I'll pause here to give kudos to Jim Lehrer, the moderator. The questions were fair and relevant, and this was the closest thing to a "debate" I have seen in presidential politics in a long time. Jim worked hard in the beginning to try to have the candidates engage each other, but stayed out of the way.
On substance, I thought Obama gave the clearest and most accurate answers in the economic discussion that was the first half hour. I agree with Obama on the economy, so I'm sure that affects my view of the answers, but I was glad to hear him make the point that McCain is proposing tax cuts without equal spending cuts. McCain uses earmark spending as his only example of spending cuts but McCain could not respond to the fact that earmark spending doesn't even come CLOSE to covering his tax cuts. Neither candidate would identify specific programs for spending cuts, but I thought Obama explained what his decision process would be.
The majority of the time was spent on the foreign policy issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. On these topics, my analysis of the debate was that McCain displayed more experience but Obama showed better judgment and a far better analytic approach. The two best examples for me of this analysis involved Pakistan. I thought it was fairly damning of McCain for him to say his only problem with Obama's approach to military strikes in Pakistan was whether or not we talked about it! I was also impressed with Obama's willingness to say to the American people that we "coddled" the dictator Musharraf and thus lost the Pakistani people. McCain's attempted justification of "but the alternatives were worse" is no excuse. But more importantly than who is right is Obama's willingness to be OPEN about it. Let the American people know what we're doing abroad instead of this secret supporting of dictators when it's convenient.
In the Iraq war discussion, nothing new. But a great line from Obama, "John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007." It's true that McCain will not defend his 2003 position on the Iraq war. The Iran discussion was similar. I believe McCain knows more people and has been more places, but I also believe that Obama is right that the approach of McCain has not worked. McCain had no evidence that it has worked. It's pretty remarkable when, on this issue, even the Bush Administration is now moving toward what Obama has been saying for quite awhile.
On the non-substantive debate dynamics, eventually I could no longer ignore that McCain would not look at Obama during the debate. I don't think he even turned his head. Given the exchanges and the direct urging of the moderator, that seemed like a decision. I have no idea why. Watching a clip later I noticed that McCain didn't even look at Obama when shaking hands in the opening. Also, McCain gave a few sarcastic answers and repeatedly said "he doesn't understand" (though wouldn't look at Obama and say "YOU don't understand"). Overall I think this icy demeanor hurts McCain. Obama wasn't Reagan or Clinton "warm" either, but seemed equally engaged with the moderator, McCain and TV audience.
Overall, I have to give Obama the win on substance in the economy (better description of his own plan and distinctions with McCain's); a draw on foreign policy substance (just comes down to who you agree with); a slight edge to Obama on demeanor (though if you're turned off by sarcasm you would give Obama a big edge here).
Has this debate impacted my vote? Only to the extent that I feel more confident in Obama as a leader. I already agreed with his economic plan but liked his open analysis on foreign policy. If you have a different opinion or something stood out to you, I'd like hear about it.
I'll pause here to give kudos to Jim Lehrer, the moderator. The questions were fair and relevant, and this was the closest thing to a "debate" I have seen in presidential politics in a long time. Jim worked hard in the beginning to try to have the candidates engage each other, but stayed out of the way.
On substance, I thought Obama gave the clearest and most accurate answers in the economic discussion that was the first half hour. I agree with Obama on the economy, so I'm sure that affects my view of the answers, but I was glad to hear him make the point that McCain is proposing tax cuts without equal spending cuts. McCain uses earmark spending as his only example of spending cuts but McCain could not respond to the fact that earmark spending doesn't even come CLOSE to covering his tax cuts. Neither candidate would identify specific programs for spending cuts, but I thought Obama explained what his decision process would be.
The majority of the time was spent on the foreign policy issues of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, and Russia. On these topics, my analysis of the debate was that McCain displayed more experience but Obama showed better judgment and a far better analytic approach. The two best examples for me of this analysis involved Pakistan. I thought it was fairly damning of McCain for him to say his only problem with Obama's approach to military strikes in Pakistan was whether or not we talked about it! I was also impressed with Obama's willingness to say to the American people that we "coddled" the dictator Musharraf and thus lost the Pakistani people. McCain's attempted justification of "but the alternatives were worse" is no excuse. But more importantly than who is right is Obama's willingness to be OPEN about it. Let the American people know what we're doing abroad instead of this secret supporting of dictators when it's convenient.
In the Iraq war discussion, nothing new. But a great line from Obama, "John, you like to pretend like the war started in 2007." It's true that McCain will not defend his 2003 position on the Iraq war. The Iran discussion was similar. I believe McCain knows more people and has been more places, but I also believe that Obama is right that the approach of McCain has not worked. McCain had no evidence that it has worked. It's pretty remarkable when, on this issue, even the Bush Administration is now moving toward what Obama has been saying for quite awhile.
On the non-substantive debate dynamics, eventually I could no longer ignore that McCain would not look at Obama during the debate. I don't think he even turned his head. Given the exchanges and the direct urging of the moderator, that seemed like a decision. I have no idea why. Watching a clip later I noticed that McCain didn't even look at Obama when shaking hands in the opening. Also, McCain gave a few sarcastic answers and repeatedly said "he doesn't understand" (though wouldn't look at Obama and say "YOU don't understand"). Overall I think this icy demeanor hurts McCain. Obama wasn't Reagan or Clinton "warm" either, but seemed equally engaged with the moderator, McCain and TV audience.
Overall, I have to give Obama the win on substance in the economy (better description of his own plan and distinctions with McCain's); a draw on foreign policy substance (just comes down to who you agree with); a slight edge to Obama on demeanor (though if you're turned off by sarcasm you would give Obama a big edge here).
Has this debate impacted my vote? Only to the extent that I feel more confident in Obama as a leader. I already agreed with his economic plan but liked his open analysis on foreign policy. If you have a different opinion or something stood out to you, I'd like hear about it.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Bodies Strewn Across the Dead End Street but I Won't Heed the Battle Call
A few weeks ago Obama and McCain were asked the same question and they each gave their immediate answer without knowledge of the other's response. One question really grabbed my attention because I think it gives us unexpected insight of the mindset and belief system of the two.
For some reason, I see so much in these answers I could dive in and spend 30 minutes (okay, I did spend 30 minutes discussing this with a patient friend). But I'll try to make the main 2 points quickly.
First, Obama cares as much about domestic evil as genocidal evil. When asked about evil, this country's children and the streets of our cities are as close to his mind (and heart) as the "usual" and politically safe paradigm of genocide or terrorism.
Second, and I think this is far more important, Obama recognizes his own (our own) depravity and when all political "sense" is saying "never equivocate on a question like this!" Obama is willing to say the hard thing yet again. I cannot overstate the importance of this quality to me.
In contrast, McCain exhibits callous disregard of the fact that evil will accompany HIM in his battle against evil. On a certain gut level there's a part of me that says, "Yeah, get 'em!" when McCain immediately launches a war in response to evil. But that quickly fades into the gut-wrenching reality that an American captain is going to be put into the situation of knowingly killing a woman and child to try to protect his men.
Our cheer "follow him to the gates of hell, John!" should get stuck in our throats as we realize OUR desire for revenge and belief in the rightness of our cause has just sentenced 3 young American soldiers to a situation where they will eventually execute in cold blood four Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots to the head as the prisoners stood handcuffed and blindfolded beside a Baghdad canal.
Yes: us, we, the good guys. These were good people fighting for a good cause whose lives are ruined, yet John McCain is getting people pumped up for revenge without a thought of humility. Beware the righteous warrior. I find Obama's answer so much more seasoned, wise and (dare I say) more in line with how Jesus would answer.
"Does evil exist? And if it does, do we ignore it? Do we negotiate with it? Do we contain it? Do we defeat it?"
OBAMA: Evil does exist. I mean, I think we see evil all the time. We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children. I think it has to be confronted. It has to be confronted squarely, and one of the things that I strongly believe is that, now, we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.
Now, the one thing that I think is very important is for to us have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil's been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil. In the name of good, and I think, you know, one thing that's very important is having some humility in recognizing that just because we think that our intentions are good, doesn't always mean that we're going to be doing good.
MCCAIN: Defeat it. A couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that. And I know how to do that. I will get that done. No one, no one should be allowed to take thousands of American -- innocent American lives.
Of course, evil must be defeated. My friends, we are facing the transcended challenge of the 21st century -- radical Islamic extremism.
Not long ago in Baghdad, Al Qaida took two young women who were mentally disabled, and put suicide vests on them, sent them into a marketplace and, by remote control, detonated those suicide vests. If that isn't evil, you have to tell me what is. And we're going to defeat this evil. And the central battleground according to David Petraeus and Osama bin Laden is the battle, is Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and Iraq and we are winning and succeeding and our troops will come home with honor and with victory and not in defeat. And that's what's happening.
And we have -- and we face this threat throughout the world. It's not just in Iraq. It's not just in Afghanistan. Our intelligence people tell us Al Qaida continues to try to establish cells here in the United States of America. My friends, we must face this challenge. We can face this challenge. And we must totally defeat it, and we're in a long struggle. But when I'm around, the young men and women who are serving this nation in uniform, I have no doubt, none.
For some reason, I see so much in these answers I could dive in and spend 30 minutes (okay, I did spend 30 minutes discussing this with a patient friend). But I'll try to make the main 2 points quickly.
First, Obama cares as much about domestic evil as genocidal evil. When asked about evil, this country's children and the streets of our cities are as close to his mind (and heart) as the "usual" and politically safe paradigm of genocide or terrorism.
Second, and I think this is far more important, Obama recognizes his own (our own) depravity and when all political "sense" is saying "never equivocate on a question like this!" Obama is willing to say the hard thing yet again. I cannot overstate the importance of this quality to me.
In contrast, McCain exhibits callous disregard of the fact that evil will accompany HIM in his battle against evil. On a certain gut level there's a part of me that says, "Yeah, get 'em!" when McCain immediately launches a war in response to evil. But that quickly fades into the gut-wrenching reality that an American captain is going to be put into the situation of knowingly killing a woman and child to try to protect his men.
Kearney could see a woman and child in the house. "We saw people moving weapons around," Kearney told me. "I tried everything. I fired mortars to the back side to get the kids to run out the front. I shot to the left, to the right. The Apache got shot at and left... Finally, we shot a javelin and a tow. I ended up killing that woman and that kid."
Our cheer "follow him to the gates of hell, John!" should get stuck in our throats as we realize OUR desire for revenge and belief in the rightness of our cause has just sentenced 3 young American soldiers to a situation where they will eventually execute in cold blood four Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots to the head as the prisoners stood handcuffed and blindfolded beside a Baghdad canal.
Yes: us, we, the good guys. These were good people fighting for a good cause whose lives are ruined, yet John McCain is getting people pumped up for revenge without a thought of humility. Beware the righteous warrior. I find Obama's answer so much more seasoned, wise and (dare I say) more in line with how Jesus would answer.
Friday, September 5, 2008
You Remind Me of a Man
Most of last night’s speech really reminded me of a senator I used to read about named John McCain. About 18 months ago, I appreciated McCain’s attempt at immigration reform, opposition to torture, openness to the press (and thus the public), fervor for balancing the budget, opposition to tax cuts not aimed at middle income earners, and (more importantly) seeming to value an accomplishment higher than “party unity.” I have not seen that lately. But last night McCain spoke of unity over partisanship and chided the Republican Party rather strongly for a convention acceptance speech. McCain even alluded to Republicans’ sanction of torture and implied he would end it (“I know how the military works…and what it shouldn't do”) and one small allusion to immigration (“In this country, we believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential, from the boy whose descendents arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers”). In general terms, it was a workmanlike speech delivered as well as expected. It was more stirring in his personal story than any political strategy. I was surprised he went as far as he did talking about his own POW experience. It seemed to me they kept ramping up the POW story and details as the week went along and I thought it reached a macabre (and over the top) crescendo with the “When you’ve lived in a box….” narration by Fred Thompson immediately before McCain took the stage. I assumed they did this to keep McCain from having to do this himself, much like others communicated the historic aspect of Obama’s race so that he didn’t have to mention it. At least McCain gave the best tie-in I’ve heard for why his POW experience is relevant to being President by describing how it personally changed him and created his love of “country.”
The calls for unity in government and personal respect for Senator Obama rang hollow to me given the full-throated display of mean spirit the night before. But the best thing McCain has going for him, in my opinion, is that there continues to be a small disconnect between him and the group gathered in the convention hall. McCain’s biggest reaction came from the crowd the moment he mentioned Sarah Palin’s name. Yet there were stifled boos when McCain mentioned his respect for Obama. The crowd sat quietly when McCain promised, “I'll ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me” and when McCain mentioned, “I've fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes.” He was met with stone silence when he said, “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.” All good stuff, but I continue to be puzzled, as I have been all week, how the speakers speak passionately how “change is coming…We’re going to change Washington” etc. with no apparent memory that from January 2001 through January 2007 they held all three branches of the Federal Government and today still hold two out of three!
McCain’s platform elements sounded like the last few State of the Union speeches. To the best of my understanding, McCain is running on a platform of “All the same policy elements we have right now, but with less corruption.” Fair enough. America will decide, and we can discuss specific elements of health care, taxes, etc. here before November.
The calls for unity in government and personal respect for Senator Obama rang hollow to me given the full-throated display of mean spirit the night before. But the best thing McCain has going for him, in my opinion, is that there continues to be a small disconnect between him and the group gathered in the convention hall. McCain’s biggest reaction came from the crowd the moment he mentioned Sarah Palin’s name. Yet there were stifled boos when McCain mentioned his respect for Obama. The crowd sat quietly when McCain promised, “I'll ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me” and when McCain mentioned, “I've fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes.” He was met with stone silence when he said, “We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us.” All good stuff, but I continue to be puzzled, as I have been all week, how the speakers speak passionately how “change is coming…We’re going to change Washington” etc. with no apparent memory that from January 2001 through January 2007 they held all three branches of the Federal Government and today still hold two out of three!
McCain’s platform elements sounded like the last few State of the Union speeches. To the best of my understanding, McCain is running on a platform of “All the same policy elements we have right now, but with less corruption.” Fair enough. America will decide, and we can discuss specific elements of health care, taxes, etc. here before November.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Three Men and a Baby
George W. Bush, Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman all spoke last night at the Republican National Convention. First, I want to mention the stage. I love it. The stage is only about 4 or 5 feet off the ground and 3 sides of it are in the crowd. The speaker is part of the crowd; a very interesting arrangement for an event such as this. The back of the stage is an incredible 51 feet by 30 feet high-def LED screen. I wonder if knowing they could never compare to the Invesco Field stage from last week’s convention, the campaign decided to go for an entirely different affect. The affect here is sparsely practical and modern (the good kind of modern). I watched the screen used effectively as relevant photos faded in and out during Thompson’s speech, and a Minnesota senator gave his speech in front of a panoramic view of St. Paul.
Bush gave a very short speech via video that hit exactly the notes needed to satisfy the party faithful in attendance but created no opportunities to tie McCain to Bush (apparently one awkward hug per year is enough). Bush was on video, but the perfect delivery made me suspect it was not a live feed. After watching that short speech on video, if I were McCain’s people, I would scrap the idea I’ve heard that McCain will give his speech via satellite. Bush felt dramatically removed from the room and the thousands of people. Because of delays, you cannot interact with the crowd in any way without appearing very awkward (see the Obama family moment from last Monday). Without interaction and standing in a silent room, the speaker is totally removed from the crowd. Nearly the exact opposite affect the stage creates for live speakers. In many situations I could see that not an issue, but this is one of those times McCain would want us to see him being embraced and cheered by thousands. He’s not exactly a charismatic guy; he doesn’t need to create a situation to make him seem even more removed. Of course, after the love fest I expect for Sarah Palin tonight, maybe he doesn’t want the comparison. But I’m way off the evening’s speeches now… Bush was warmly received, which was fine but did create for some bizarre moments later when the crowd cheered with equal passion for how screwed up things are “in Washington.”
Fred Thompson gave McCain’s life story from the Naval Academy through his POW time in Vietnam. McCain’s years as a prisoner of war is an incredible story, no doubt about it. It’s interesting to me how we can all so easily disconnect an individual from the atrocity of war. We can feel awe and respect for McCain’s behavior after being shot down, without ever considering the women and children on the ground being terrorized and killed just moments earlier. Fred’s telling of the story was good, but he was glued to the teleprompter! As an actor, I really expected him to be engaged more with the camera and crowd. Fred then moved into McCain’s political career with basic generalized statements designed to highlight McCain as a “true” reformer instead of just “a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad.” (I’m wondering, does this mean McCain will not be using a teleprompter on Thursday? I’m confused…) This typified Fred’s attacks on Obama, which were all pretty generic and seemed ineffective. Fred did give a very practical line or two about how taxes affect us all, ending with a good line: “They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the ‘other’ side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.”
I give credit to the convention organizers for scheduling Joe Lieberman. Joe started his speech calling for national unity, not partisan politics, on issues like gas prices, health insurance and threats from enemies abroad. I like the appeal and the unifying message of having a well-known Democrat say it at the Republican convention, but I was disappointed that Joe gave zero examples of anything specific about these issues. What is it that partisan politics has prevented McCain from doing about gas prices, health insurance and enemy threats? Off-shore drilling is the only semi-specific issue related to these topics that McCain is “for” that the Democratic congressional leaders have opposed. Anyway, I thought Joe’s presence alone spoke highly of McCain’s willingness to at least not criminalize anything Democratic. Lieberman slipped from this track, though, when he attacked Barack with a generic argument summarized by him as “eloquence is no substitute for a record.” I’m not sure when in America it became a point of contempt to be smart and communicate well, or when intelligence and the ability to motivate no longer became foundational qualities of a president.
In final comment, I did chuckle several times as the convention crowd created moments of dissonance. Having cheered President Bush and McCain’s long record in Washington, they equally cheered McCain’s apparent ability to “drain that swamp” and to end the
“self-serving ways of Washington.” Joe met with tepid applause when he touted McCain’s work on immigration and global warming. The funniest (most ironic) moment of the night came when Fred Thompson and the crowd cheered President Clinton’s ability to work with the Republican Congress to reform welfare and balance the budget! Especially that budget one, THAT was funny!
Oh yeah, the baby. Watching delegates and party spokespeople being interviewed about Sarah Palin’s expecting daughter, and hearing them offer such defense and gracious comments, I couldn’t help but remember Dan Quayle and these same people’s outrage at fake person Murphy Brown pretending to have a baby as a single woman…
P.S. I cannot WAIT until tonight's speech when we get to see Sarah Palin's speech, which apparently includes skinning a moose, drinking the blood and grinding some moose burger all while she breastfeeds Trig, teaches Bristol some Lamaze and rips Joe Biden a new one!
Bush gave a very short speech via video that hit exactly the notes needed to satisfy the party faithful in attendance but created no opportunities to tie McCain to Bush (apparently one awkward hug per year is enough). Bush was on video, but the perfect delivery made me suspect it was not a live feed. After watching that short speech on video, if I were McCain’s people, I would scrap the idea I’ve heard that McCain will give his speech via satellite. Bush felt dramatically removed from the room and the thousands of people. Because of delays, you cannot interact with the crowd in any way without appearing very awkward (see the Obama family moment from last Monday). Without interaction and standing in a silent room, the speaker is totally removed from the crowd. Nearly the exact opposite affect the stage creates for live speakers. In many situations I could see that not an issue, but this is one of those times McCain would want us to see him being embraced and cheered by thousands. He’s not exactly a charismatic guy; he doesn’t need to create a situation to make him seem even more removed. Of course, after the love fest I expect for Sarah Palin tonight, maybe he doesn’t want the comparison. But I’m way off the evening’s speeches now… Bush was warmly received, which was fine but did create for some bizarre moments later when the crowd cheered with equal passion for how screwed up things are “in Washington.”
Fred Thompson gave McCain’s life story from the Naval Academy through his POW time in Vietnam. McCain’s years as a prisoner of war is an incredible story, no doubt about it. It’s interesting to me how we can all so easily disconnect an individual from the atrocity of war. We can feel awe and respect for McCain’s behavior after being shot down, without ever considering the women and children on the ground being terrorized and killed just moments earlier. Fred’s telling of the story was good, but he was glued to the teleprompter! As an actor, I really expected him to be engaged more with the camera and crowd. Fred then moved into McCain’s political career with basic generalized statements designed to highlight McCain as a “true” reformer instead of just “a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad.” (I’m wondering, does this mean McCain will not be using a teleprompter on Thursday? I’m confused…) This typified Fred’s attacks on Obama, which were all pretty generic and seemed ineffective. Fred did give a very practical line or two about how taxes affect us all, ending with a good line: “They say they are not going to take any water out of your side of the bucket, just the ‘other’ side of the bucket! That's their idea of tax reform.”
I give credit to the convention organizers for scheduling Joe Lieberman. Joe started his speech calling for national unity, not partisan politics, on issues like gas prices, health insurance and threats from enemies abroad. I like the appeal and the unifying message of having a well-known Democrat say it at the Republican convention, but I was disappointed that Joe gave zero examples of anything specific about these issues. What is it that partisan politics has prevented McCain from doing about gas prices, health insurance and enemy threats? Off-shore drilling is the only semi-specific issue related to these topics that McCain is “for” that the Democratic congressional leaders have opposed. Anyway, I thought Joe’s presence alone spoke highly of McCain’s willingness to at least not criminalize anything Democratic. Lieberman slipped from this track, though, when he attacked Barack with a generic argument summarized by him as “eloquence is no substitute for a record.” I’m not sure when in America it became a point of contempt to be smart and communicate well, or when intelligence and the ability to motivate no longer became foundational qualities of a president.
In final comment, I did chuckle several times as the convention crowd created moments of dissonance. Having cheered President Bush and McCain’s long record in Washington, they equally cheered McCain’s apparent ability to “drain that swamp” and to end the
“self-serving ways of Washington.” Joe met with tepid applause when he touted McCain’s work on immigration and global warming. The funniest (most ironic) moment of the night came when Fred Thompson and the crowd cheered President Clinton’s ability to work with the Republican Congress to reform welfare and balance the budget! Especially that budget one, THAT was funny!
Oh yeah, the baby. Watching delegates and party spokespeople being interviewed about Sarah Palin’s expecting daughter, and hearing them offer such defense and gracious comments, I couldn’t help but remember Dan Quayle and these same people’s outrage at fake person Murphy Brown pretending to have a baby as a single woman…
P.S. I cannot WAIT until tonight's speech when we get to see Sarah Palin's speech, which apparently includes skinning a moose, drinking the blood and grinding some moose burger all while she breastfeeds Trig, teaches Bristol some Lamaze and rips Joe Biden a new one!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
