Thursday, September 04, 2008

Old White Haired Dude

As was widely expected, McCain's speech didn't have the same punch as Palin's the night before. No serious gaffes, but it was a B-plus speech with a C-minus delivery.

Green background? Yikes. Glad that wasn't there the whole time.

Those protesters in the hall are the lowest form of scum on the earth. "You can't win an occupation"? Tell that to Germany and Japan. It makes McCain's remarks about failing schools all the more poignant.


Anonymous said...

This is unrelated to the speech - but I think MJA brougth up something along these lines - Bush/Cheney was "elected" in 2000 and for 6 years had a Republican Congress (is that right?) - if the Republicans weren't able to get America in the right direction - why do we need more republican time in office to change things? If the Republicans are big small government people - WTF is the TSA, Medicare D, etc? If 8 years wasn't enough, why will 12 work?

Anonymous said...

Also how do you end partisan rancor while pandering to your base?

Larry said...

For Matt Anonymous:

There are a lot of us asking this question.

Some of us think the answer is named Sarah Palin--much of her "name" was made fighting corrupt Republicans.

I see it as a small hope versus a no hope.

Some of us are still hurting from the massive disappointment Newt Gingrich turned out to be.

Palin has actually delivered.

Sockless Joe said...

The Senate was R controlled 50/50+Cheney in 2001 until Jeffords switched to Indep in May of 2001. R's retook the senate in 2003 (2002 election). I guess that would mean that the Iraq authorization took place under a Dem controlled Senate, though surely one under considerable electoral stress.

But yes, most of Bush's Presidency has been under R control.

McCain is not Bush. To say that he "voted Bush's position" X% of the time is to get the causation backwards. Bush was a rubber stamp for congress, not the other way around.

Ending partisan rancor is not going to happen regardless of who is prez. McCain himself would find himself on both sides of that rancor from time to time, but the underlying divisions between the parties are deep.

Let me flip that one around on you - is Obama's promise to bring Americans together more or less credible? McCain really is the maverick, much as it irritates me a lot of the time. Obama cannot say the same thing. He is a predictable, partisan, progressive ideologue.

Different is not synonymous with better, and popularity is not synonymous with right.

Sockless Joe said...

Larry, Matt is originally from Alaska and he knows all about Palin.

Many would view the pick of Palin as pandering to the conservative base, particularly social cons. There's something to that, but I'm not complaining.

But the other side of Palin is good/clean government, and that is not a partisan issue.

If pandering to the base means the economic argument on taxes, trade, and regulation, then I don't think there's any way around that. That is what the Republican party has been built on for the last thirty years and over that time the more our candidates push that agenda the better they do.

Samay said...

I was talking to a friend from New Orleans about the varying levels of corruption there and in Chicago, and we came to the conclusion that Corrupt+Competent beats clean+incompetent anyday. Palin appears to be a total fundie winger, but at the very least, she does her job well, unlike Bush, Cheney, Murkowski, and even McCain.

I think Larry has a point that Palin is a good improvement towards a real republican over the Gingrich/Rove days, but that's actually what the old New Deal Democrats stood for, and hopefully Obama's going to bring that side of the party back.

Anonymous said...

Not to harp on the Daily Show, but it was interesting how many of the promised elements of change were lifted almost directly from Bush's speech in 2000. Was the delivery the change? Bush = Forceful, McCain = Placating (almost nurturing)

However, having not actually watched the speech, my question is how long did it last? Four similar points out of a 45 minute speech does not undermine the concept of oncoming change, but four *major* points out of a 15 minute speech might very well do so.


Sockless Joe said...

The CSPAN video is 56 mins long, though that includes over 2 and half mins of applause before he even got started. Actual content (other than "I accept, blah, blah") doesn't start until 3:45.

I don't know how much junk is at the end of the video, YouTube spazzed out on me. But you get the idea.

Maybe YT didn't like the fact that a flagged a RickRolled McCain speech as "spam". Searching "John McCain convention speech 2008" does not yield the convention speech. Screw 'em.