I was working on classes last night and missed the live performance, but read through the transcript of Sarah Palin's speech this morning (as well as some excerpts from Guliani's). They struck me as pretty effective for motivating the party base.
For Guliani it was lack of executive experience for Obama and absence of any distinguishing legislation in the Senate.
For Palin it was "look, I'm a Dobson mother" and "Obama never mentioned victory once except in reference to his own campaign."
It seems to me the "no experience" and "my son's going off to Iraq next week" rhetoric works really well with the 60+ and remaining WW2 generation. Drill baby drill works with the business crowd. And holding the baby, I'm a hockey mom, works with the Dobson crowd. I did think it was a little over the top when they handed her the AK47 for the NRA crowd (just kidding).
I find Guliani's speech a more substantive attack. Other than pointing out McCain's experience, which is certainly noteworthy, Palin's speech seemed to me more "posing for pictures with the base" than anything else.
On the other hand, I think most Americans will find the raking over the coals of Palin's personal life irritating. The kind of people that are going for Obama don't like that sort of stuff, although I suspect the Clinton crowd does. In fact, the people going for Obama will find both speeches the same old polarizing approach to politics they are tired of.
The "clinging to guns and religion" quote got some air last night. I find that irritating, because the statement bears serious discussion. I have yet to see those who don't like it actually address the question of whether it has any truth to it or not. Rather, the response has been--"Are you going to let him say that about you! Let's go shoot him in the name of God!"
What did you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think it is interesting that you follow Palin's speech with the Galatians passage...:)
Yes, I did think she began weak, especially after Guillani's speech (and what a speech! You should really review that one...).Guillani had made reference to job applicants where two resumes were before the American people....with one, who had McCain's experience in foreign affairs and the other, where Obama had "community service" experience...Palin picked up that line, as well...and Guillani referred to Obama's "dissing" of Palin's experience as small town politics...Gulliani said "I guess he doesn't think it is cosmopolitan enough"...and he made reference to the times Obama voted "present" and G. stated that in the presidency, you cannot vote "present",as decisiveness is an important attribute...he also referred to how much Obama would "study the issue" with his 300 or so foreign experts....etc..
Palin, though, was formiable and even one of Clinton's adviors agreed. There were really no criticsms except the fact that she started slow...but some of it was getting into the "grove "of the speech....
Obama's campaign responded to her presentation with criticizing the fact she used Bush's speech writer adn trying to make her identified with the last administration...which I don't think will "play out" as she had made her points, as had many others last night that made enough distance between Obama's campaign and theirs that it would be hard for the public to view similarities with Bush...as he is in the past...
What I do think is inappropriate, really unethical, but a political ploy that I hope doesn't do anything for Obama's campaign is...he is to be interviewed tonight...and many were wondering if it would distract from McCain's speech...that is dirty politics, but I guess if you believe the ends justify the means, then who knows what one can expect...it is as the saying goes, "the appearance of the law", but not "doing the law"....don't talk to me about what is ethical..when it comes to the military, guns, war, etc. when dirty politics shows more about one's character...
I simply tired of her talking about her family. I don't care about her family any more than anyone else's. Many critiqued Obama and Biden for presenting their positions without telling us HOW they will accomplish it, and I felt this was even less substantive than that. After a while, she did finally get into the issues.
1. Let's help special needs kids (a difficult and complex thing to do, but NO ONE is going to disagree).
2. Let's exploit our natural resources in Alaska.
3. Obama is all talk and no action.
4. Obama is anti-populist (against the people in their religion, and even in his tax policies--here she carefully spoke of him generally raising taxes and did not note that his plan raises taxes for the top parts of the population only--I found this a very interesting sleight of hand).
5. And, well, she claims we should not give the right of fair trial to those captured under suspicion of terrorism.
Now, here's a question. When Obama's pastor made some remarks troubling at large, he had to distance himself. I hear that Palin's church just had the founder of Jews for Jesus speak, and that he made some rather anti-semitic remarks. For fairness sake, should we have to ask her whether or not she agrees with this? What is her position on converting Jews to Christianity?
But her speech was not bad. Guiliani's was the "gloves are off" speech. But before him, with Mitt Romney, I became queasy. I had to turn the television off because I was utterly amazed and actually afraid that people believed in the things he spoke of...and made me very happy that he did not receive the nomination.
Jared, I didn't hear Mitt Romney's speech, as I was doing something else...what did he say that made you "afraid they might believe"...?
And I agere that Palin should answer questions about her pastor as well...
Dear Angie,
Thanks for the note on my blog...I would not have seen this otherwise.
At this point, I really cannot remember. I think I blocked it out of my memory and filled that space with happy thoughts. Or, perhaps filled that space with the Iliad...since I just got back from teaching a class on it.
I wish I could be more helpful than this...At this point I would have to pull up a transcript of his speech and, quite frankly, I have much better things to do than read a Romney speech.
In some ways it was an interesting move, if you bring out someone speaking perhaps to the far right, everyone else after him looks moderate by comparison.
Interesting, "far right" for Gulliani?
One of the things that has troubled me in this campaign is; How do we view ourselves and the rest of the world...now that it is a globalized market...? Can we trust others in business dealings when their "rules" are not like ours? Who do we appeal to when there is a contract broken? The U.N.? This one point in Guillani's speech gave me room for pause...he stated that Obama said he would appeal to the UN about Russia's invasion of Georgia...Russia has veto power...did he not know this...I thought comparing community service with military and legislative experience was also effective...
If Obama wants to bring unity...is he capable while he has had no judicial experience, either...? The UN (I don't believe) is a good arbitrator of interests...and who is to decide? All nations are not equal...should they be and on what basis? Economic power is the power that rules the world..And I believe this is short-sighted...as ideologies are at play here...
"I think most Americans will find the raking over the coals of Palin's personal life irritating."
If Palin brings her personal life into the campaign then she must accept some hard questions. It's only fair. Palin presents herself as having a squeaky clean Christian life, and she does that for obvious political reasons.
Both McCain and Biden have sons who are going to Iraq, but they choose not to publicize the fact. Palin does.
I guess I haven't heard her play the "Proverbs and I have a lot in common when it comes to raising children" card yet. But if she does, then I will feel free to get my hypocrite sticker book out :-)
Personally, I don't like the personal attack tone in either party. I've felt like Obama and McCain have both done a pretty good job thus far at sticking to the real issues and not going personal. I wouldn't say the same of Palin or Guliani's speech.
I don't know if she said this in her speech or not, but I have been--and still am--absolutely infuriated by the "the Iraq War is a mission from God" jargon.
I hadn't realized that Palin was so agreeable with Bush's foreign policy!
Ad hominem aside, if the McCain/Palin white house is an extension of Bush policy, that's more than enough for Obama to get my vote in November.
Okay, I don't think that Sarah Palin is a "Dobson woman." Are you kidding? She's working outside of the home while she has kids, she's nominated for a position in leadership - those things aren't "Dobson" at all.
I also don't think that any candidate's denominational doctrine is a litmus test; therefore, no candidate should have to answer questions about his or her clergy.
Furthermore, Sarah Palin did not jettison her family into the spotlight: the media did. She didn't write thousands of headlines about her daughter's pregnancy, or whether or not she should be in office while she has children at home.
I think we also need to clarify our thinking about a few things: rhetoric, as a discipline; political argument; and ad hominem fallacies.
There is nothing wrong with attacking a person's arguments; there is everything wrong with attacking a person, both logically and ethically. In this sense, then, it is legitimate to question the definition of a community organizer, for instance. It is not alright to say he's a bad father for running for president, though, like some have suggested about Palin for accepting the VP nom.
Let us keep in mind that the democratic candidate's position on abortion is liberal even to many in his own party: he has voted to preserve the medically unnecessary procedure of partial birth abortion. This is so close to infanticide, yet all we hear about is critique of Palin's values. You may think that Obama's bid represents a better chance of government helping to bring in the kingdom for the poor, etc.: but he is not defending the most powerless, and there is no medical, or politically logical reason to do so.
Post a Comment