Opening speeches not quite there
Both McCain and Giuliani were well given and delievered with the appropriate amount of emotion and intensity. But both had some problems.
McCain could simply not find the rhythm of the crowd, which caused constant interference with the tempo and power of his speech. His attack on Michael Moore, while more than worth it, and guaranteed to get a chuckle from every Republican, both those MSG and those at their homes, was a big mistake. Ultimately the one aside is what will catch media attention, particularly the networks, not his fairly powerful endorsement of Bush.
Giuliani on the other hand delivered a very off the cuff speech, littered with personal stories and more than a few attacks against Kerry. Attacking Kerry right out of the gate on the first night of the convention was a big mistake. Especially directly and by name. You know that those attacks will be the only part of HIS speech to catch network coverage or see print. look for "Bush Campaign Goes Negative on First Nite!" if it fits.
The goal of this first night was clear. Remember 9/11, and the President's response. A reasonable calculation when one remembers that Bush's approval rating was around 80%.
The one message that I thought both speechers DID do a good job on was the Terrorism-Iraq connection. Both laid the line very clear that Iraq was a part of the War on Terror, and that only be establishing democratic regimes do we make ourselves safer. I think this was the point Bush was trying to make with Matt Lauer, but that rather backfired.
I wonder to myself some times, why it is that I'm the only one who immediately understands what Bush is talking about when everyone else accuses him of a Faux pas.
"Catastrophic success"= "we succeeded beyond our initial expectations which made post-war planning difficult to impossible.
"Can not win war on terror"= We will always be on guard against terror, because its a method not a political actor. But what's important is that you encourage (or establish) countries which free and democratic, thus reducing the number of areas where terrorism festers.
Both of these things makes perfect sense. I understood them immediately, and I imagine most americans who bother to think for themselve did too. I can't imagine that those in the media (and certainly the Kerry/Edwards campaign) are so incompetent as to not know what he meant. Its a willful misinterpretation, which is the sort of juvenile stunts one sees when campaigns are about personalities not issues (as I've said before).
Either way, I think Bush has set himself up very nicely for a good speech when his time comes. We will see more of the "love in" republicanism that McCain drew upon for his speech, and I think its the right tactic for the Bush camp. If the message stays, "Tough on terrorism and compassionate at home" Bush will deflect much liberal criticism which will be based on deeply held stereotypes of Republicans, and not on the actual substance of the President.
McCain could simply not find the rhythm of the crowd, which caused constant interference with the tempo and power of his speech. His attack on Michael Moore, while more than worth it, and guaranteed to get a chuckle from every Republican, both those MSG and those at their homes, was a big mistake. Ultimately the one aside is what will catch media attention, particularly the networks, not his fairly powerful endorsement of Bush.
Giuliani on the other hand delivered a very off the cuff speech, littered with personal stories and more than a few attacks against Kerry. Attacking Kerry right out of the gate on the first night of the convention was a big mistake. Especially directly and by name. You know that those attacks will be the only part of HIS speech to catch network coverage or see print. look for "Bush Campaign Goes Negative on First Nite!" if it fits.
The goal of this first night was clear. Remember 9/11, and the President's response. A reasonable calculation when one remembers that Bush's approval rating was around 80%.
The one message that I thought both speechers DID do a good job on was the Terrorism-Iraq connection. Both laid the line very clear that Iraq was a part of the War on Terror, and that only be establishing democratic regimes do we make ourselves safer. I think this was the point Bush was trying to make with Matt Lauer, but that rather backfired.
I wonder to myself some times, why it is that I'm the only one who immediately understands what Bush is talking about when everyone else accuses him of a Faux pas.
"Catastrophic success"= "we succeeded beyond our initial expectations which made post-war planning difficult to impossible.
"Can not win war on terror"= We will always be on guard against terror, because its a method not a political actor. But what's important is that you encourage (or establish) countries which free and democratic, thus reducing the number of areas where terrorism festers.
Both of these things makes perfect sense. I understood them immediately, and I imagine most americans who bother to think for themselve did too. I can't imagine that those in the media (and certainly the Kerry/Edwards campaign) are so incompetent as to not know what he meant. Its a willful misinterpretation, which is the sort of juvenile stunts one sees when campaigns are about personalities not issues (as I've said before).
Either way, I think Bush has set himself up very nicely for a good speech when his time comes. We will see more of the "love in" republicanism that McCain drew upon for his speech, and I think its the right tactic for the Bush camp. If the message stays, "Tough on terrorism and compassionate at home" Bush will deflect much liberal criticism which will be based on deeply held stereotypes of Republicans, and not on the actual substance of the President.
<< Home