I have to admit that speeches delivered by candidates at the recent national political conventions do not sway my opinion of that particular candidate. I also know from experience that these same speeches are written by professional speech writers and based on what is politically popular at the time.
I don’t have any problem with this old political dynamic. It certainly doesn’t diminish the speaker in anyway, as far as I’m concerned. I also don’t leap to my feet to cheer on a rousing speech.
Senator Obama certainly delivered an outstanding speech as did Alaska Governor Palin. I am more impressed and influenced by what the candidates have done leading up to their speeches rather than what they promise in the future.
Russia is a growing economic and military power. At this particular time, it is the greatest concern for me as an American. How does the next president of the United States use his power to deal with Russia? It is not known how our country will deal with Russia over the next several years.
What did we hear during both conventions that gave us hope for the future? Did anything stick out and impress me? Yes, of course.
Change v. experience might be the battleground issue for the media in the upcoming national election. For me, it’s too generational. This debate lacks substance.
For example: What type of change are we talking about? The overriding concern is the moral character of the person. This also includes the people around the candidate (and next president). If I knew who some of these officials might be, my decision as to who to vote for might be much easier.
I was certainly impressed by Mrs. Cindy McCain and her quiet, humanitarian efforts throughout the world. Her record of commitment to the poor and needy was inspiring to me. She quietly but effectively demonstrated her love and compassion for others. Very few public figures have unselfishly helped those struggling in life.
As a social and economic justice Catholic, deeds of charity are more important to me than a great speech. Love thy neighbor as thyself is not just a Biblical phrase with me. It’s also my political compass.
Pundits and pollsters have not yet figured out how American’s will vote. Yes, change and experience matters. So does character.
posted September 7, 2008 at 11:08 am
I agree, but feel that speeches are important in the sense that we need candidates to publicly reveal their positions in order to attempt, however ineffectually, to get them to uphold these positions we have voted for when in office.
Also, the willingness to be specific, and not use insults and invective and poor arguments and even lies, matters to me.
Of course, it would matter more if the candidates were to actually use their own words and ideas and write their own speeches.
posted September 7, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I like to think that candidates veto speech lines that are inauthentic and insist on themes they think are important – i.e., that they’re not just channeling an anonymous wordsmith (or, as in Palin’s case, a known wordsmith). Else you wouldn’t be able to tell a Democrat speech from a Republican speech. Speechwriters exist, I suspect, as much for division of labor (it takes a lot of time to write a good speech) as for the more fluent speeches that result.
That said, what one has done is more important – at least absent a plausible claim to have undergone metamorphosis – than what one says and promises. That’s why I’ve got real concerns about voters putting Senator Obama in the Oval Office. He hasn’t demonstrably done anything all that bad, but it seems to me that his deeds have mostly been grooming for public office.
And thank you, Ambassador Flynn, for posts that don’t just raise the blood pressure of this rather conservative reader, who comes over here to have his views challenged but too often finds dishonesty and thinly-disguised partisanship.
posted September 7, 2008 at 6:39 pm
“Senator Obama certainly delivered an outstanding speech as did Alaska Governor Palin.”
I found this line fascinating. Isn’t the election between Obama and McCain? It just shows that once again, Republican tactics are working, just as they did 4 years ago when Kerry was torpedoed by lies and rhetoric. The Republicans realized that they had no shot with McCain unless they could bring in someone who would create a major diversion and get all the attention off McCain. It sure worked, didn’t it? No one had much of anything to say about McCain’s acceptance speech, and even today the media is still talking about all these controversies surrounding Gov. Palin.
To me, convention speeches are display rhetoric equivalent to a pastor “preaching to the choir.” It’s easy to defame your opposition when your audience is made up of only those who agree with you, and this certainly goes both ways. The debates will be another story, as Republicans won’t be able to hide McCain behind the “lipstick pitbull,” and America will have a chance to see how both these gentlemen answer real questions put to them. Empty rhetoric like Republican leaders crying out for “change” won’t fly in the debates, either, so I think the ground will shift quite a bit soon.