A lot (most) of it was the same culture-war GOP boilerplate we've been hearing for years. And it didn't address any of the substantive issues. It wasn't anything we haven't heard before. And as the Republicans have reminded us, there's a lot more to the job than giving good speeches. She's got a background in broadcasting, we know she's good at reading copy written by someone else. Giving a good speech doesn't qualify her for the job.
The Republicans were never going to just lay down and die. They're going to fight back, and not give up power easily. No one does, why should they be different? Yes, Palin's speech was infuriating. But it wasn't, to use this year's over-used phrase, "game-changing."
It rallied the base; it was clearly aimed at the people in the convention hall, and it clearly succeeded with them. But if I were a middle-of-the-road voter, doing relatively OK but a little worried about my mortgage payment, OK with being in Iraq but not happy with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo...would I have heard anything there appealing to me? Or just standard GOP culture-war boilerplate?
Addendum: A bit of linkage:
PZ Myers: This is how we will lose
WaPo: In a more diverse America, a mostly white convention
Gail Collins, NYT: Palin seems an awful running mate, until you look at the alternatives
NYT blog: Still one step behind (apparently written before Palin speech)
AmericaBlog: Sarah stretches the truth
RBC: Palin was at 2006 Alaska Independence Party Convention
CNN's online quick poll:
| Thumbs up | 43% | 81618 |
| Thumbs down | 34% | 64820 |
| Didn't watch | 22% | 41694 |
| Total Votes: 188132 | ||
No comments:
Post a Comment