ChrisWeigant.com

Republican Convention Wrapup

[ Posted Thursday, September 4th, 2008 – 22:21 UTC ]

So, after our new marathon-style two weeks of conventions, you'll forgive me if I'm a little exhausted from the whole thing. I promise, postings here will return to our normal schedule next week, instead of jotting things down whenever I pry myself from the television set.

After witnessing John McCain's acceptance speech tonight, the last event in the Republican Convention, I have to wonder: that was it? Wow.

I mean, McCain gave a good speech. It was a fine speech, for McCain. Even if he did appear in front of the lime green background for the first part of it. Even if it was interrupted a few times by protestors. And even though he's a Republican, and I disagree with almost everything that comes out of his mouth. For McCain, not known for his TelePrompTer acuity, it was actually a pretty well-delivered speech.

But, seriously, that was it?

Barack Obama should immediately start hammering McCain for not addressing the needs of the middle class once in their entire convention. "McCain just doesn't get it" should become a rallying cry for Obama and Biden from now on.

Because McCain obviously doesn't get it.

When I watched the speeches, I tried to be as unbiased as possible while doing so. My wife had to leave the room at several times while Republicans were speaking, but I was practicing my Zen emptiness, waiting for the GOP to convince me -- pretending that I was a middle-class voter who hadn't paid any attention to either campaign, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, as it were.

Both Obama and McCain used lofty rhetoric. I discounted it. Down-to-earth voters think all that sort of thing is a crock anyway, so I listened to each candidate (and both conventions) as if I was a reluctant voter, waiting to be convinced. I wanted to hear what the candidates would do for me, and what they proposed to make my life better.

I got a lot of this from Democrats in general, and Obama in particular. Specific things they were for, specific ideas they had, and specific things they wanted to change to help people like me.

What I got from Republicans, and McCain in particular, was exactly what they have charged Obama with -- a lot of empty words, and no meat-and-potatoes issues at all.

I mean, it's nice that Republicans are finally talking about alternative energy sources, but they only started doing so about three months ago. Previous to then, McCain voted against alternative energy bills pretty much every chance he got. It would be nice to believe that both parties' candidates are basically on the same page on solar, wind, and other renewable energy (seriously, you could have interchanged the parts in their speeches that talked about energy -- except for oil drilling, and slight differences on nuclear -- and both Obama and McCain could have delivered each other's words without missing a beat). Because this might (might, mind you...) mean something could be done about it next year no matter who is in the Oval Office.

But other than McCain's newfound love of windmills (maybe T. Boone Pickens talked him into it), what exactly did he offer middle class voters in his speech? Low taxes? School vouchers? More free trade agreements (good luck with that one in Ohio and Michigan, Senator McCain)? The entire speech, other than the biography bits ("I'm so reluctant to talk about my P.O.W. experience that it will be mentioned by every single speaker at the convention..."), was what I would call "standard Republican boilerplate." Oh, OK, there was a line or two about how the Republican Party had strayed from fiscal discipline (which I thought fell kind of flat, actually), which I have to acknowledge is not exactly standard GOP boilerplate. But the rest of it? Could have been Bob Dole in 1996. Or Bush in 2000. It could easily have been just about any Republican running for just about any office anywhere in America in the last decade or so.

For all the undecided and just-getting-interested middle-class voters out there, McCain's speech didn't really offer much. It certainly didn't offer any new ideas or policies I could get behind. In fact, Obama's speech was addressed directly to such voters, and McCain's speech all but ignored them. The image I got from McCain is that he's a "maverick" who is for exactly what his party is for. Not very mavericky, in my book.

And after all the balloons have popped and the funny hats put away for another four years, it's just not going to be good enough to convince the swing voters in the middle. That's my guess, and I could be wrong, but I truly think McCain's speech left a lot to be desired. Even if he did deliver it well.

 

-- Chris Weigant

 

19 Comments on “Republican Convention Wrapup”

  1. [1] 
    echothebat wrote:

    Was anyone else as disgusted with the scenes from 9-11? Are we back to listening to the Boogie man all over again. Guess this 'maverick' can't win without scaring the living crap out of Americans. WAKE up!

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    @echo

    So, you don't think terrorism is a threat?

    Do you think that, by acknowledging Pearl Harbor Day or any other of a hundred yearly acknowledgments is "scaring the living crap" out of people?

    Why the Democrats are in such a big hurry to forget the lessons of the past is beyond me.

    Or maybe it's not..

    If my weak side was national security and self-defense, I probably also would want to try and convince people that it's NOT a dangerous world out there.

    Michale....

  3. [3] 
    benskull wrote:

    Painful. I was watching it, while texting with friends, and my parents in VA. I admit I yelled several times, and had a few texts sent out with caps and expletives. He really didn't offer much solution. And Michale, you have to admit, if anybody likes to fearmonger, its the republican part, especially around an election. I'm not saying there aren't threats, but in my opinion, and that of many others, Bush hasn't handled them entirely well. They are on the wrong side of the issues this year. They know it. He offered nothing substantial. My father was in the navy for 36 years, my mother is a teacher, and my self a FF/paramedic, we heard nothing attractive to civil servants. He spoke of education with no specifics, though I admit, I'd like to hear the dems get more agressive about scrapping "no child left behind" because it has left most children behind. He said lower taxes, but from the last 8 years, I know that won't apply to me, but I may get a stimulus check, cause the economy wont get any better. I will admit though, that I didn't expect much different this week, other than lack of substance and attack. And here's a couple links to some great stuff about Palin, though CW has touched on most of it. I'm appalled at the one about banning books from the library. If thats not a foreshadowing of awful things to come, I don't know what is..
    Also check out This FUNNY daily show clip.

    This one talks about the hopeful banning of books, several paragraphs down

    And This one has most of her details.

  4. [4] 
    BLaws wrote:

    I'm still shocked at McCain's VP pick. He killed the 3 best arguments he had going for him in one fell swoop.

    1) Experience - that Obama was too inexperienced
    2) Celebrity/Rock Star
    3) All the attention on Obama

    1) He pretty much threw a wet blanket on the experience argument against Obama. Sure, there are some rebuttals and Obama doesn't want to take the bait. But it's hard for him to make serious attacks on experience because then the press will just hit him back on her's.

    2) Hard to accuse your opponent of being a celebrity and rock star when your inexperienced VP is also called the same now, and you are running on personallity and not issues.

    3) The biggest one I think... Everyone was saying that "if the focus is on Obama and this election is a referrendum on Obama... he loses". The news was NOTHING but Obama, 2:1 coverage with 3:1 neg vs positive. That's why McCain was closing the gap. The Obama team couldn't get the media off focusing on him and get them to focus on McCain. And in one fell swoop... McCain put the focus of every journalist in the country on his ticket.

    I'm curious how the Gallup will be today. Obama gained ground in the poll even when the first two days of the RNC were included. Today's will show numbers with her speech included. If he gains again that will be huge, I expect to see Obama gain among independants again with a bit of upswing for McCain on Republican voters to offset it some. Monday's will be the real interesting one.

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    @BLaws

    1) He pretty much threw a wet blanket on the experience argument against Obama. Sure, there are some rebuttals and Obama doesn't want to take the bait. But it's hard for him to make serious attacks on experience because then the press will just hit him back on her's.

    I guess it's a cup is half empty/cup is half full scenario.

    The Dems can't attack Palin on experience without emphasising the fact that Palin has MORE executive experience than Obama.

    Yet, the GOP can STILL make the lack of experience argument against Obama, because Obama is running for POTUS, not VPOTUS.

    Granted the argument loses something, but not nearly as much as it gains by insulating Palin from the "experience" attacks.

    Plus the simple fact that the GOP has maneuvered Obama into running against Palin. That was a MAJOR coup for the GOP, PR wise.


    2) Hard to accuse your opponent of being a celebrity and rock star when your inexperienced VP is also called the same now, and you are running on personallity and not issues.

    The only reference to this is a "rising star" comment. That hardly equates to "celebrity" in the eyes of John Q Public...

    When Palin can fill a stadium with 85,000+ screaming hysterical fans and gets a standing ovation for blowing her nose, then I will concede that the celebrity standing is equal..

    As to the polls, you know my feelings on that. However, the latest poll I read about (think it was Gallup) had Obama & McCain even again.

    Michale.....

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    I read on other Dem sites on how Dems are complaining that she is too sharp in her comments. One well-known blogger calls her Sarah Snidely..

    Of course, they conveniently forget that, in the run-up and aftermath to Obama's Biden pick, they were all about how it's the VP candidate's job to go on the attack, etc etc...

    This is real popcorn style theater coming out of the political camps.. :D

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    BLaws wrote:

    However, the latest poll I read about (think it was Gallup) had Obama & McCain even again.

    Most likely the crappy CBS poll from yesterday. The numbers in that thing were a joke on both sides. None of it was credible imo for or against either guy.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea, it's the CBS Poll that is tied..

    The Gallup has Obama up by 4, but it was up by 8 a day or so ago...

    And the Rasmussen Poll has Palin more popular than McCain AND Obama..

    Like I said... Polls.... useless...

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    To the polls comments -

    Yeah, national polls have very little meaning, which is why I keep such a close eye on the state polls.

    Having said that, though, CBS had the two even at 42%. Today's polls -- Rasmussen had Obama up by two (48/46) and Gallup had him up by 4 (48/44).

    The thing to remember, as I always hasten to point out, is that polls take a while. An event (a speech, for instance) happens. Americans see it. They think about it. Then they talk about it around the watercooler for a day or two. Then opinions start to gel. Polls also take time. They usually call people over a two-day period. To be accurate, this two-day period has to happen (at a minimum) after the event itself. The most accurate ones don't start the two-day period until after a day or so after the event. Then it takes another day for them to crunch the numbers. So while Obama is showing a bounce that appears to be holding (ignoring the outlier CBS poll) at 48-50%, McCain's convention bounce has yet to show up. It will likely do so Monday or Tuesday. By the end of next week, or maybe even the beginning of the following week, we should start to see how opinions are gelling, on both sides of the aisle.

    And, admittedly, this takes longer to show up in state polls, since they are done MUCH less frequently than the national polls. So far, Obama's doing well in the state polls (the VERY few that have been done), and has reversed his slide and started regaining states into his column. Electoral-vote.com has him up 301 to McCain's 224, with 13 tied.

    I know, polls are silly, but sometimes I just can't help myself!!

    :-)

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    @benskull

    Sorry, I missed your comments earlier. Dunno how that happened..

    And Michale, you have to admit, if anybody likes to fearmonger, its the republican part, especially around an election.

    Fear-mongering isn't exclusively a Republican trait..

    One only has to witness cries of.....

    "BUSH and CHENEY are going to create a Nazi Police State!!!"

    or

    "Global Warming will destroy the planet in TEN YEARS!!!"

    to understand that Democrats are just as adept at using fear-mongering as Republicans.

    It's even a WORSE problem with Democrats because at least terrorism IS a real threat... Democrats tend to fear-monger with complete and utter nonsense..

    I'm not saying there aren't threats, but in my opinion, and that of many others, Bush hasn't handled them entirely well.

    Yes, in hindsight, things could have been handled better, there is no denying that..

    Just as, in hindsight, Katrina & New Orleans could have been handled better..

    That's one of the advantages of hindsight..

    And here's a couple links to some great stuff about Palin, though CW has touched on most of it. I'm appalled at the one about banning books from the library. If thats not a foreshadowing of awful things to come, I don't know what is..

    How is that any different than Democrats wanting to ban and censor right wing talk radio based on some mythical connection to two (count them, TWO!!) acts of random violence?

    As far as "banning books", according to the article you linked, the inquiry was made because "some voters" felt that there were inappropriate books in the library. What books?? A COMPIALATION OF HUSTLER IMAGES by Larry Flynt?

    100 Most Banned Books from 1990 to 2000
    http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/100mostfrequently.cfm

    Some of those books SHOULD be banned from the Library, wouldn't you agree?? How many times have we read about well-meaning DEMOCRATS wanting to ban Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer from schools and libraries because of it's racial attitudes?? Or the LIBERAL outcry to censor/ban the re-release of SONG OF THE SOUTH???

    Sorry, that "book banning" argument simply has no legs because the Democrat's hands are nay so clean when it comes to banning and censorship..

    You can say what you want about Sarah Palin, but an 80% approval rating as Guv says a LOT more...

    Michale.....

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Correction to above..

    I mis-identified the http://www.ala.org link...

    100 Most CHALLENGED Books from 1990-2000

    Not banned...

    My bust....

    Michale...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although I can't find the links, here is what I find telling about the whole Palin thing..

    Democrats are railing hysterically against pre marital sex and stating that a woman's place should be in the home raising her children...

    With THAT kind of invective coming from DEMOCRATS, you KNOW that Democrats have many MANY screws loose...

    It's amazing how, more and more, Democrats are acting like and adopting the methodology of the Republicans that they claim to hate. There are three examples of that, just in this thread alone..

    Michale.....

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't mean to monopolize the thread, but another thought just occurred to me..

    Given the American public's response to Palin, one has to wonder how many Democrats are kicking themselves for not having Hillary in the #1 or #2 slot... :D

    Although, I don't think Hillary would have had a modicum of the response that Palin is getting.

    But, I am sure there are regrets nonetheless....

    "Furthertheless is not a word. Stop using it!"
    -Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY

    :D

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    loslobo wrote:

    Michale

    Although this is an exercise in futility, I will not allow you inane comments go unchallenged. First you Repugs keep spewing out how good you are in fighting “Terrorists”. Let me remind you exactly who was in charge during 9/11, and how there was continual denials of how this took them by surprise when evidence has shown how much the administration ignored. (Even if you’re foolish to believe it wasn’t an inside job) All those medals of freedom given for what, committing mass murder? And speaking of mass murder, the real reason the “surge” is working is after you commit ethnic cleansing to the tune of a million civilians, displace millions more, and then pay off the rest for not fighting, ya there will be less victims.

    Torture, wiretapping, deregulating everything, you fucking Repugs should be real proud.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    @loslobo


    I will not allow you inane comments go unchallenged.

    Woo hoo! :D


    First you Repugs keep spewing out how good you are in fighting “Terrorists”.

    UUUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNNNKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK

    First error.

    I am a registered NPA down here in FL. "No Political Affiliation" So, calling me a "repug" is completely inaccurate..

    Truth be told, with a few exceptions (4 to be exact) I am probably more liberal than you are.


    Let me remind you exactly who was in charge during 9/11, and how there was continual denials of how this took them by surprise when evidence has shown how much the administration ignored. (Even if you’re foolish to believe it wasn’t an inside job)

    Ahhhh I knew there was a reason why I usually dismiss what you say. Inside job? Of course, you can PROVE that, right? Oh that's right. I forgot. You were absent the day they taught Law at Law School.

    As far as reminding me who was in charge, this is true. Just as Clinton was in charge during the first WTC attacks. He sure did a bang-up job in preventing the second one, eh? Perhaps if Clinton had responded PROPERLY to the first terrorist attack, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened. Yea, he put a couple scumbags in jail. Whoopdie dooo... 'Bout as effective as bombing an aspirin factory..

    Don't get me wrong. Bush does share the blame for 9/11. Especially because it happened on his watch. But it is undeniable that Clinton set the stage for 9/11 by his lack of resolve..

    But ALL of the blame is with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Which renders most of it moot...


    Torture, wiretapping, deregulating everything, you fucking Repugs should be real proud.

    All of which has been COMPLETELY authorized by the DEMOCRAT controlled Congress...

    So, I guess that makes you Democrats proud too, no??

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    loslobo wrote:

    Michale

    "But ALL of the blame is with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Which renders most of it moot…"

    Are you serious? moot? That would be laughable if it wasn't CRIMES that goes along with the blame.

    Maybe your lizard brain can wrap around this...but I doubt it.
    Look up the term “thermal expansion”

    Opps sorry…It’s a NEW PHENOMENON

    "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event," said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. "Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down."

    "Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7," Sunder said. The NIST investigation team also determined that other elements of the building's construction-namely trusses, girders and cantilever overhangs that were used to transfer loads from the building superstructure to the columns of the electric substation (over which WTC 7 was constructed) and foundation below-did not play a significant role in the collapse.

    According to the report, a key factor leading to the eventual collapse of WTC 7 was thermal expansion of long-span floor systems at temperatures "hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire resistance ratings." WTC 7 used a structural system design in widespread use.

    http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

    Since steel is an excellent conductor of heat, heat will easily transfer along connected steel beams. Heat also tends to be distributed. Heat will attempt to disperse & dissipate.
    The fact that steel transfers and distributes and dissipates heat makes huge pieces of steel (or interconnected steel) difficult to melt, soften, or distort. Tremendous quantities of thermal energy are required for huge steel members to suffer significant compromise.
    Also, add to this fact that once the office material is burned-up, the temperature lowers because the fuel has been consumed. Thus, fires typically travel towards another source of fuel or eventually extinguish. With routine office fires, this infers that a focus of heat can not be applied towards a specific area for any long concentration of time. Using this tidbit of information about the reduction of the heat source, it would be ludicrous to think that a normal office fire would be sufficient to focus heat onto a region of a huge network of steel for any significant time.
    I suspect that, like the WTC investigation, their computer analysis does not include any meaningful assessment of the mechanism of progressive failure following this initial first cause. In order to produce the type of collapse that was observed, the connections between ALL structural members must have failed instantaneously. However, in reality, once one connection fails, that connection ceases to act upon members that are farther along the load path. That force is no longer available to pull apart subsequent connections. As a result, the propagation of the failure wave throughout the building should be halted as soon as the first connection fails. Therefore, it is physically impossible for the failure to propagate through the building unless one postulates an external forcing mechanism applied distributively throughout the structure.
    Explosives are the only answer.

    But didn’t Larry say something about WTC7 being pulled?

    Didn’t the BBC announce the fall of WTC7 20 minutes before it did fall?

    But I don't have to tell you, you know it all

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, what's your theory as to why WTC7 was intentionally destroyed??

    A joint Israeli Mossad/US Girl Scout operation designed to protect the secret recipe of the peanut butter crunch cookie recipe??

    Or maybe a US CIA/CodePink operation designed to ferret out infiltrators within the Flat Earth society??

    History is replete with instances of extraordinary circumstances causing extraordinary events..

    Hell, human existence is an act of extraordinary cosmic alignment of random events.. The "CARE" principle. (My own concept.. :D)

    So, you'll forgive me when confronted with a conspiracy enthusiast who puts forth circumstantial evidence which has "ONLY ONE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION" that I don't outright condemn everyone and everything from Bush to the Girl Scouts to PoohDunk Musuem of Natural History to my Aunt Matilda...

    Give me something more than circumstantial evidence and we can talk. A signed confession from the guys who laid the explosive charges would do quite nicely...

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    loslobo wrote:

    Michale…..

    We can't talk if you refuse to listen...

    GET a CLUE

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    @loslobo

    You like to quote from NIST?

    Allow me to as well..


    On August 21, 2008, NIST released its draft report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, beginning a period for public comments.[32] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[44] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers. But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, including on floor 13, where a critical interior column buckled. With the buckling of that column, adjacent columns also failed along with the floor structure above. This triggered a vertical progression of floor failures to the roof. The collapse then progressed east-to-west across the structure, and ultimately the entire structure collapsed. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[45]

    Conspiracy theorists believe the building collapses on September 11, including that of building seven, were the result of controlled demolition.[53][54][55][56] The draft NIST report rejected this hypothesis, as the window breakages and blast sound that would have occurred if explosives were used were not observed.[57]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

    Sorry to burst your bubble..

    But, as I said, come talk to me when you have FACTS...

    Michale....

Comments for this article are closed.