An interesting insight from David Brooks:
And what was most impressive was her speech's freshness. Her words flowed directly from her life experience, her poise and mannerisms from her town and its conversations. She left behind most of the standard tropes of Republican rhetoric (compare her text to the others) and skated over abortion and the social issues. There wasn't even any tired, old Reagan nostalgia.Instead, her language resonated more of supermarket aisle than the megachurch pulpit. More than the men on the tickets, she embodies the spirit of the moment: impatient, fed up, tough-minded, but ironical. Even in attack, she projected the cheerfulness of someone confident about the future.
In those 40 minutes, the forces of reform Republicanism took control, at least for a time. Republicans started talking about Palin, Bobby Jindal and a brighter future for their party.
Ain't that the truth. Think, really think, what kind of miserable trouble the GOP and the conservative movement would be in tonight if McCain had put the awful Mitt Romney on the ticket. In Palin and Jindal, you've got the future. I knew this Republican convention would be the end of something. I didn't know it would also be the beginning. No disrespect to the man, but the fact that Palin didn't mention Reagan is, I think, a healthy sign.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
That still doesn't address the question, however, of why McCain would criticise his opponent for his youth and lack of experience and then choose as his running mate a person who is younger and less experienced than his opponent.
I agree, I don't see why he doesn't just drop this (in fact, at least some of the conservative objection to Palin that I've read seems to stem from the fact that her choice as VP blunts the ability to criticize Obama for being inexperienced). I wouldn't say it's exactly hypocritical of him to so criticize Obama, since after all Palin is not the head of the Republican ticket. Still, he certainly leaves himself open to 'tu quoque' rebuttals.
BTW, I misspoke (miswrote) - Obama's TOTAL legislative career is 12 years, consisting of 8 years in the Illinois senate (1996-2004), and 4 in the US Senate (2004- ).
Anduril:
Thanks for correcting yourself, and me, on the years of Obama's legislative experience. And thank you for actually responding to what I said.
Maybe "hypocrisy" isn't the right word. Maybe better words are, let's see...cynical, dishonest, disingenuous. My criticism, whatever the appropriate word might be, stands. No, she isn't the "head" of the GOP ticket, but she is nominated to be "one heartbeat...." You know the rest. Also, the office of vice president holds more influence and power than it once did. Vice presidents are included in policy-making much more than they once were. That's not to mention the fact that the vice president is the president of the Senate, and must vote if there's a tie. And actually, it seems as though she really is heading the GOP ticket if her current popularity is any indication.
However, McCain's choice of a running mate leaves him open to much more the "tu quoque" rebuttals. It leaves him open to serious questions about his judgment and decision-making process. Palin, for all her charm, chutzpa and current popularity, has unanswered questions about her ethical conduct, or lack thereof, in office as governor of Alaska, questions which, I'm afraid, and the GOP needs to be very afraid, will not go away and may exact a heavy toll on her and on the McCain candidacy.
"a mere three years of coursework at an over-rated law school, during which time Obama seems not to have done very much besides network with well-heeled peers"
Rufus, I'm on your side politically. So please understand that context when I tell you that you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I do: I graduated from Harvard Law School in 1987, magna cum laude, just like Obama. You know, that takes some work -- a lot of work -- for everyone who accomplishes it. And I wasn't even on the Law Review, which requires a very serious amount of time and effort. There are plenty of good arguments to make against Obama; there's no need to make a spectacularly ignorant one.
I graduated from Harvard Law School in 1987,
Was that the year he started there, or did you miss him by a year?
ScurvyOaks,
I myself hold a doctorate from a program in my field that is at least as difficult to gain admission to and at least as difficult to make it through as Harvard Law School is. I don't feel that my own academic accomplishments or yours or Obama's are anything to sneeze at. I just don't thank that they qualify any one of the three of us to be President, or that they give Obama any great advantage over Sarah Palin, who has at least as impressive, and arguably more impressive, credentials than Obama does, Sarah Palin whose time -- even a short time -- as governor of a state -- even a small state -- is of a good deal more significance than my doctorate or your or Obama's law degrees. Perhaps because I know how such sausages as graduate and professional degrees are made, I'm inclined to regard them in a rather less mystified and rather less totemic way than some people do -- and especially less so than Obama's supporters on this thread and elsewhere seem to do.
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.