Sometimes when you don’t watch a speech, you can better learn how it played than when you do watch it. Of course you can’t reach your own conclusion about the address, but, in this case, the speech wasn’t going to sway me one way or the other in the presidential contest.
Tonight’s speaker, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is far superior to the failed incumbent. And I didn’t need a speech to remind me of his qualities. So, I chose to dined with good friends who, like me, are in Carpinteria for a myth conference instead of breaking our plans and tuning in.
When I joined some other friends who had watched the speech, they instantly told me about its best lines, ones that nearly every commentator on FoxNews cited this:
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet.
[PAUSE]
My promise is to help you and your family.
“It was“, writes occasional Romney critic Philip Klein, “a great way to remind the audience of the grandiose promises that Obama made when he ran for president while also vowing to keep his eyes on the more important stuff if elected.”
Those lines resonated and Mitt Romney successfully turned his rhetorical disadvantage into a leadership advantage. Unlike Obama, he won’t promise you the moon, he’ll get the job done.
When we switched over to CNN, we caught Piers Morgan interviewing Democratic National Committee Chairman Debbie Wassterman Schultz, she chose not to challenge to the talk show host’s praise for the Republican nominee’s speech as “solid” (or did he say “strong”?), but instead to make fun of Clint Eastwood’s dialogue with a chair. Seems a sign Democrats want to deflect attention away from the speech.
Later, when we turned back to FoxNews, where former Howard Dean’s former campaign chairman Joe Trippi praised the speech. Seems it was a successful address.
And Mitt Romney may well have set the tone for the coming campaign with the contrasting promises he offered. One man will offer lofty rhetoric, the other will roll up his sleeves and get to work.
Instead of using his time in the White House to improve his golf game.
UPDATE: The contrast set up in this line, observes Steven Hayward is
about the grandiosity of liberalism today, whose overweening pretentiousness has seldom found better expression than Obama (though Walter Mondale professing himself a candidate of “the sad” in 1984 comes close, as George Will reminded usthe other day).
Liberalism today is all about solving cosmic issues like global warming and “social justice”—which is why liberals like large, heavily politicized, programmatic “solutions” for everything. As has been often said, liberals love The People, but don’t like real people, as shown by the fact, detailed in yet another recent study, that liberals give pitifully little to charity compared with conservatives. A liberal’s idea of charity is taking your money and funding a government program it. Actually helping an individual in need–well yuck, that the government’s job don’t you know.
Read the whole thing.
UP-UPDATE: Agreeing (with most pundits and this blogger) about the best line of the night, Michael Graham calls it “subtle” and contends it hits “the right notes“:
reminding everyone of the narcissism and hubris of Obama and his moonbat supporters. How many times did Mitt say “we” last night? How often does Obama not say “I”?
Indeed. Via Powerline picks.
FROM THE COMMENTS: In order to measure the quality of a Republican’s speech, Roger suggests we “Watch the left and their reaction. That is how we’ll know how effective this is.”
I have found over the years (since 1952) that listening to speeches may be good fun but it is useless in analyzing the effects. We all hear a different speech. November 6 is judgement day.
I have gotten to where I don’t particularly listen to speeches anymore, but read the text.
We all hear a different speech.
This is so true. Evidence can be seen by the reaction of a very liberal friend on facebook. She was totally losing her mind in her comments on the speech.
People here what they want to hear through the filter of their own preconceptions.
There were probably a few undecided voters out there who may have been moved one way or the other by the speech, but I think this race seems to have very few of those this election cycle.
It is a shame that people watch conventions on a network with all the analysis and commentary bantered about. None of the speeches are so technical that the average person can not grasp the tone and intent of the speech.
Why are people (mostly) liberals so unable to form their own opinions?
I listened in my car. I caught WBZ out of Boston. A CBS affiliate. When Rubio spoke they quickly interrupted with “color” commentary from the floor and I immediately scanned for another channel. Both Rubio and Romney didn’t disappoint me. I am JAZZED about this campaign.
Watch the left and their reaction. That is how we’ll know how effective this is.
Why are people (mostly) liberals so unable to form their own opinions?
Comment by TnnsNe1 — August 31, 2012 @ 12:13 pm – August 31, 2012
T – my guess and answer to your question is that most, if not all of what they believe, in order to form an opinion, is based upon lies and falsehoods. Consider man made “global warming,” concept of welfare, big government spending to spurr growth, taxing the rich to pay total debt, Republican “war on women.” I could go on, but I think you get my drift.
It is real tough to form a cogent opinion when your belief system is based on smoke and mirrors and factless facts.
They only thing I listen for in speeches by politicians is to see if the words match the deeds. Obama never came close. There was nothing in his history that showed he could do what he was saying he could do. For Romney, it’s the opposite. He has done what he says he is going to do if elected.
I thought pretty much all of the major speeches were great. Romney’s wasn’t the best of them—I thought Condi and Ryan were better, but he was still great. I’m too much in the tank for Romney to offer an objective opinion, but my hunch is that he helped himself with undecided voters. What will be interesting to see is if the Democrats pare down on their plans to highlight social issues next week. By concentrating on economic issues, Republicans concentrated on the issues most on the minds of Americans. People may not agree with Republican plans on the economy, but if the Democrats spend much time on side issues, the contrast will be clear. But can Democrats really spend much time on the economics issues? Are they going to argue that if only we tax the rich more, jobs will come roaring back? Maybe they will be better off sticking with Abortionpooloza after all.
I’ll be disappointed if I don’t see a new lefty meme here real soon, “Butbutbut… Obama never promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet!!!!1! Look over there, Seamus! Taxes! Bushitlercheneyburton!!11!1!”
Hmm. I wonder why he lost by such an enormous margin. (/sarcasm)
Yeah, I’m guessing different people like different things in speeches. For example, I wouldn’t care one bit about what kind of person Romney is beyond whether he is corrupt (if I were voting in this election), what I would like to hear is specific policy he plans to try to implement. He offered a plan, but it wasn’t quite as detailed as I would have preferred. Also, some people were criticizing the lack of energy in the room as he was giving his speech. I realize that it is important to energize the base (and that most voters don’t use the same criteria on which they base their votes as me, unfortunately), but I would never vote for someone based on how they can energize a crowd (or how likeable they are, or how good of a family man they are).
It’s the culture; it seems like some time in the past (long before I was born, so I can’t be sure) people were much more independent (in every aspect of life). Now, people have become increasingly dependent on their parents and the government for survival, and people on TV to tell them what to think (that is, unless they are independent enough a person to resist those things).