A little light on substantive policy recommendations, sure. But in all, a solid speech.
A few observations:
1) He did not attack Obama other than to say he didn't have the requisite experience and wasn't getting the job done. He did not attack Obama's philosophy or motives.
2) I was happy that he did not promise to cut taxes except on "small businesses" which could mean many different things. I'm hoping that he doesn't 'really' mean to cut the highest marginal income tax rate and am happy that he did not say that he does last night.
3) He gave Obama credit for killing OBL which was refreshing, but he's still probably a little too hawkish on Iran for the mainstream. I cringed when he mentioned the Obama apology tour again.
4) I still don't get this baby-kissing thing where every politician has to suck up to the voters with this rubbish about American exceptionalism, but I guess they all have to do it...
Best line (paraphrasing): It's not good when the best feeling you had about Obama was the day you voted for him.
All in all, he adopted the tact that I've said all along can get him elected: Don't scream about bad motives or anti-Americanism or any of that nonsense. Just go out there and say: President Obama is a great guy but he's not getting the job done economically. Look, I can do better: I have the experience and the track record both in the private and public sphere.
That is an argument that will appeal to the fence-sitters.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199181
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76He let Ryan do the attacking. That's the VP candidate job. Ryan has squandered quite a bit of political capital on one speech however.
A little light on substantive policy recommendations, sure. But in all, a solid speech.
A few observations:
1) He did not attack Obama other than to say he didn't have the requisite experience and wasn't getting the job done. He did not attack Obama's philosophy or motives.
2) I was happy that he did not promise to cut taxes except on "small businesse ...[text shortened]... and public sphere.
That is an argument that will appeal to the fence-sitters.
The flower story was a nice touch for lots of media columns about how he "humanized" himself.
He did repeat the Medicare cut lie, which I think is going to catch up to them.
I think it was a good speech.
The only downside is that I think Eastwood's weird performance is drawing as much media attention as his speech.
Well, the other downside is that he didn't provide any details as to how he's going to create 12 million jobs. I do think that the 6 or 7 percent who for some reason haven't made up their minds will want some kind of substance before November.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199181
31 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by EladarGore actually came across as very personable in his convention speech, particularly when he kissed his wife. It was the debates that cost him some votes, with the makeup and the Academy Award type acceptance speeches in lieu of answers.
One thing is for sure, he came off as more personable as Al Gore. If he can keep that up, I think he has a real chance at beating Obama.
I have no idea what impression Romney made on undecided voters. The pundits seem to think he did well. We know that Rasmussen will give him a bounce, but let's see what happens with the real polsters over the next few days.
31 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I think it was a good speech. And made him seem more personable which is key to getting the fence-sitters as you say. However, him concluding about war against Iran hurt him with the fence-sitters. Further, he arguably never gave any indication at all how he was going to create 12 million jobs. Further, Obama has not raised taxed. Lastly, your cringing of the mention of the Obama apology tour is a little puzzling because that is the Republican party.
A little light on substantive policy recommendations, sure. But in all, a solid speech.
I cringed when he mentioned the Obama apology tour again.
As an aside, Gingrich acknowledged the other day that the President had not waived the work requirements in welfare, but then last night said that the President did such. Clearly, the GOP this year including Romney have went beyond the typical political spin and stretching of the truth to being incredibly misleading and spouting outright blatant lies.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by KunsooI have no idea WTF was up with Eastwood. Someone obviously didn't vet him properly.
He let Ryan do the attacking. That's the VP candidate job. Ryan has squandered quite a bit of political capital on one speech however.
The flower story was a nice touch for lots of media columns about how he "humanized" himself.
He did repeat the Medicare cut lie, which I think is going to catch up to them.
I think it was a good speech.
The on ...[text shortened]... some reason haven't made up their minds will want some kind of substance before November.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76It was a good speech. Good enough IMO. He didn't have to be stellar, just more competent than Obama, which isn't tough.
A little light on substantive policy recommendations, sure. But in all, a solid speech.
A few observations:
1) He did not attack Obama other than to say he didn't have the requisite experience and wasn't getting the job done. He did not attack Obama's philosophy or motives.
2) I was happy that he did not promise to cut taxes except on "small businesse ...[text shortened]... and public sphere.
That is an argument that will appeal to the fence-sitters.
I think the best line was this though:
"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans, (long pause) and heal our planet. My promise...is to help you and your family."
That was perfect. I think Romney will pull this off. Now that the convention is over he can start rolling out the dough to a (hopefully already in place) on the ground campaign machine to seal the deal over the next couple of months.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199181
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by SleepyguyThe teleprompter was off according to the pundits.
I think his teleprompter was on the fritz and he just winged it. He probably figured, hey, I'm Clint Friggin Eastwood. Teleprompters are for wimps anyway.
As to the dough, that is really going to be Romney's big advantage this election. Michael Moore is predicting that the flood of SuperPAC money will win it for Romney, but I think he's trying to scare young people into volunteering for the Obama campaign.
The convention did reveal one deep weakness in foreign policy. I'm guessing that the attacks on Obama's nearly flawless foreign policy were merely obligatory. I think they'll try to avoid the subject during the campaign.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199181
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by SleepyguyConservatives actually criticized that line because it should have said "get government off our backs" rather than "help your families."
It was a good speech. Good enough IMO. He didn't have to be stellar, just more competent than Obama, which isn't tough.
I think the best line was this though:
"President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans, (long pause) and heal our planet. My promise...is to help you and your family."
That was perfect. I think Romney ...[text shortened]... dy in place) on the ground campaign machine to seal the deal over the next couple of months.
Romney's other big problem is that he still has to pander to keep the right wing fringe excited while appealing to undecided centrists.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by KunsooThe best line of the whole convention was from Ryan's speech. Something to the effect that Obama offers "everything free, except people."
He let Ryan do the attacking. That's the VP candidate job. Ryan has squandered quite a bit of political capital on one speech however.
The flower story was a nice touch for lots of media columns about how he "humanized" himself.
He did repeat the Medicare cut lie, which I think is going to catch up to them.
I think it was a good speech.
The on ...[text shortened]... some reason haven't made up their minds will want some kind of substance before November.
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by KunsooStrictly speaking, from a conservative viewpoint, the former would be more conservative than the later. Nothing in the US Constitution makes is a Presidential responsibility to "help" American families.
Conservatives actually criticized that line because it should have said "get government off our backs" rather than "help your families."
Romney's other big problem is that he still has to pander to keep the right wing fringe excited while appealing to undecided centrists.
Returning government to Constitutional levels would be and administrative responsibility of the President.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199181
31 Aug 12
Originally posted by normbenignThere you go! You realize this kind of wacko pressure on Romney is probably what will cause him to lose?
Strictly speaking, from a conservative viewpoint, the former would be more conservative than the later. Nothing in the US Constitution makes is a Presidential responsibility to "help" American families.
Returning government to Constitutional levels would be and administrative responsibility of the President.
No, you don't. And that's great!
31 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyI didn't see or hear it in real time, but I found it refreshingly honest and straight forward. I don't think the independents and centrists are waiting for a mealy mouthed, Democrat lite argument but for full throated articulation of why their positions are better.
I think his teleprompter was on the fritz and he just winged it. He probably figured, hey, I'm Clint Friggin Eastwood. Teleprompters are for wimps anyway.