Just so you know, I'm watching all this from a brew pub across the street from the XCel Center, drinking beer with a Crunchy Con reader. I like this vantage point much better!
Beer goggles make Dubya look better. By the way, this is the 4,000th post on Crunchy Con. Cheers!
I'm not quite sure what Bush's speech tonight means. It's a respectable, even robust, tribute to John McCain, but nothing unusual. I guess there was no way the outgoing Republican president was not going to speak to the Republican National Convention. I do note that it's happening outside of the 9pm hour.
Great line: If the North Vietnamese can't break McCain's spirit, "you can be sure the Angry Left never will."
UPDATE: I was just sitting here watching the sentimental Reagan tribute, thinking, "Why are they doing this? Reagan, again?" But before I said anything, C., my our CC pal from St. Paul, said, "My dad is sitting at home now crying. He loves Reagan."
"So that's why they're doing this, then," I replied.
"Reagan is the source of [Republican] unity," he said. Too true.
UPDATE.2: Fred Thompson is giving 'em the populist red meat over Sarah Palin, attacking the media for its elitism. Smart. This is the GOP message of the day. Huck was on it earlier, zeroing in on the media. It's very clear now that the GOP is going to run against Barack Obama and the New York Times. The anti-Palin freakout over the past four days has given them opportunity. You can't go to that well often enough.
Love this Fred line: "I can say without fear of contradiction that she's the only nominee of either party who knows how to properly field dress a moose."
UPDATE.3: This is a tactically brilliant speech from Thompson. He's positioning McCain as a badass -- "the leader of the troublemakers" -- but one who was honorable. In Dungeons & Dragons terms, McCain is the epitome of Chaotic Good. IOW, John McCain is not like those prisspots from the Eastern Establishment elite.
Richard Nixon ran on this theme in 1960. It is astonishingly durable.
UPDATE.3: Look, this isn't great oratory, but this Fred Thompson speech is brilliant. He's a great natural storyteller, and he's reminding Americans why they first came to love and admire John McCain. There was not a single speech at the Democratic convention (that I heard) that was remotely as rhetorically effective as this one.
UPDATE.4: "My friends, this is the kind of character that civilizations have sought since the beginning of history." John McCain is going to run as a noble Roman.
And this devastating stroke sets up the fall election from the GOP point of view: Thompson said Republicans don't have to ask of their candidate: "Who is this man, and can we trust him with the presidency?"
UPDATE.5: "We don't need a president who thinks that the protection of an unborn, or a newly-born, baby is above his pay grade." Stand up, pump fists into air, repeat!
Poor old Joe Lieberman, having to follow this. Remember how slow the Democratic convention was off the mark? Not happening with the Republicans.
UPDATE.6: Joe Lieberman: "I'm here to support John McCain because country matters more than party." More noble Romanism. It does have appeal.
UPDATE.7: Lieberman's theme is that partisanship doesn't matter -- being an American does. And McCain has shown that. Country first. Mind you, one can certainly criticize this, but it seems to me impossible to argue that Obama would be more of a uniter than McCain. From a pragmatic point of view, the fact that Congress will remain in Democratic hands after the November election makes it easier for people to trust Lieberman on this, and in turn to vote for McCain.
Fred was for the base; Joe is for the swing voters.
UPDATE.8: Re: Obama: "Eloquence is no substitute for a record." Lieberman said Obama has never taken on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party to get things done, in contrast to McCain. That's true. And Lieberman twists the knife, comparing Obama unfavorably on bipartisanship to -- wait for it -- Bill Clinton.
UPDATE.9: Good line: McCain will be the kind of leader that "our allies will trust and our enemies will fear."
Lieberman addressing independents directly: "You may be thinking of voting for John McCain, but you're not sure yet ... This is no ordinary election. And it's no ordinary election because these are no ordinary times. And trust me, John McCain is no ordinary canddiate. You may not agree with John McCain on every issue, but you can always count on him to be straight about where he stands... ."
McCain, says Lieberman, is "a restless reformer who will clean up Washington and get out government working again for all the American people." Hello, Perot voters!
"Vote for the person you believe is best for our country, not the party you happen to belong to." Patriotism, not partisanship.
Well, Lieberman's speech didn't match Thompson's, but it got the job done in a compelling way. I gotta say, if McCain wins this election, the turnaround in the Republicans' fortunes began tonight, with these two speeches.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I'm not very good at predicting how these sort of things play to the voters, but for the life of me, I can't see how anyone can say the Republican Convention has been anything but a slow-motion disaster at this point:
Even some of the folks at the National Review agree. I've never seen so many bored, white people in my entire life. Compare it to the enthusiasm you saw last week. And these are people who think Bush has done a great job.
I imagine there will be more excitement--how could there not be--because Palin's speech is likely to be the highmark of the convention. Her nomination is historic and was meant to motivate the base. She deserves her moment in the spotlight, especially given the negative attention she's created since Friday.
Erin Manning @ 1:24 AM writes:
"Karth, I must ask: why do you consider Sarah Palin a "woman of [...] disgraceful caliber...?" I'm curious; I don't see anything particularly disgraceful about her."
I've written about this on some other threads, but I'll say it again. Here goes:
Her failure to properly raise and supervise her children allowed one of them to go out and disgrace her family. She cannot establish/maintain elementary discipline in her own household; to allow her to continue in authority over public funds and a public trust (her office of provincial Governor) would be utter recklessness. For good taste and common sense, it ranks right up there with allowing a drug addict or drunk to remain public treasurer after he's seen shooting up or sloppy drunk in the office.
Her flaunting of both this wayward daughter and the young rake who got said daughter pregnant (on national television, no less !) is direct evidence of a lack of self-control and character which is irresponsible in a parent and even more dangerous in a public official.
It is tantamount to endorsing the behavior and the indiscipline behind it. Our standards of conduct for those who hold public trusts are low enough as it is; do we really need to endorse lowering them further ?
I'll say it again: Bristol Palin needs to get out of the public spotlight, marry the father of her child, and quietly get on with the business of raising the child, and that forthwith.
Sarah Palin needs to withdraw from the ticket and resign from public office, with public apologies. Immediately.
And to answer your (presumed next) unspoken question: if one of Barack Obama's daughters (or sons, if he had any) disgraced her family and family name like this, I would demand the same thing of him. Honor and dignity require no less.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Good grief, Karth. I couldn't disagree more strongly with you.
Is there no room in your worldview for mercy and forgiveness? Or should the girl be cast out onto the streets, branded a harlot, and expunged from the family Bible?
As to "elementary discipline" being the problem, I'm a strong believer in discipline, but I believe it has natural limits when a child is old enough to interact with her peers without constant adult supervision. Do you think it was St. Monica's fault that St. Augustine had a child out of wedlock? Should she have hidden her face in shame and disgrace over her disciplinary faults?
And what about the father? Has he no role in keeping his daughters from falling into sin?
This is a surprisingly ungentlemanly attitude on your part.
7:15 AM anonymous was me. Sorry.
Erin Manning @ 6:23 PM writes:
"Good grief, Karth. I couldn't disagree more strongly with you.
Is there no room in your worldview for mercy and forgiveness? Or should the girl be cast out onto the streets, branded a harlot, and expunged from the family Bible?"
Please re-read what I wrote: Bristol needs to do the right thing by her child. She needs to marry the father of that child and begin the process of raising it out of the spotlight. It is the merciful thing to do for both Bristol and the child. I did not, nor do I now, call for her to be cast out of her family.
The publicization and outright flaunting of this matter in the public eye is nothing short of bizarre. It is one thing to make the best of a bad situation---and this is certainly a bad situation. It is quite another to hold it up as something to be emulated.
"As to "elementary discipline" being the problem, I'm a strong believer in discipline, but I believe it has natural limits when a child is old enough to interact with her peers without constant adult supervision. Do you think it was St. Monica's fault that St. Augustine had a child out of wedlock? Should she have hidden her face in shame and disgrace over her disciplinary faults?"
As parents (with due respect, milady, I don't know if you are a parent or not, but I will make the happy assumption that you are, for purposes of discussion) we are obligated to inculcate good morals and values in our children. This, manifestly, the Palins have failed to do, certainly with regards to proper sexual conduct and self-control.
The Palins made an assumption that Bristol was MATURE enough to handle herself around young males without adult supervision, and acted accordingly. Not "old" enough, but "mature" enough. Her CONDUCT is direct evidence of both failures in this regard.
"And what about the father? Has he no role in keeping his daughters from falling into sin?"
Certainly, and I fault him as well. Mrs. Palin comes under more immediate scrutiny because she is trying (against considerable evidence) to hold herself out as meeting the higher standards that should be required of those seeking to hold a high office of public trust. The father, for all his alleged masculinity, has failed in his most basic masculine responsibility of preventing harm to the members of his House.
As to "mercy" in these matters, I quote Dr. Thomas Fleming (editor of Chronicles magazine) from another website: "Forget Christian, a Greek or Roman father would have killed the boy with his own hands." Even an American father of 50 or 75 years ago would have taken out the shotgun and made the young man do the right thing, and that presently, or face the wrath of Messrs. Smith and Wesson. Yet today, a family who aspires to high public office not only does not have the young rake in question arrested for statutory rape, but actually flies him in to appear on national television.
I ask you this, respected lady: Is there nothing wrong with this picture ?
"This is a surprisingly ungentlemanly attitude on your part."
I would like to think that a gentleman upholds certain standards, milady Manning, especially with regards to one's responsibilities to his House and Line. I would not presume to the title, but I try to uphold the standards.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.