Second Night of Speeches
IMHO the second night was a vast improvement over the first. Arnold's speech was above and beyond anything I percieved him capable of. As uncomfortable as it might make hardline conservatives, I saw some things in his speech that reminded me of another Republican Actor. (Although Arnold can't turn this speech into a springboard for the Presidency by issue of his birth.) Still the California governor hit on all of the issues that Republicans of all shades are immensely proud of, while avoiding the contentious social issues in which the party remains divided. I thought his speech was another example of the "tough love" Republicanism which will win this election for Bush if he wins.
Laura Bush's speech was also excellent. I thought it was humanizing of the President, (often a first lady's main job.) She showed him a dedicated family man, and of course the obligatory reference to the family pet. (Never ever underestimate the power of the First Dog. Checker's should have taught us all that.) I thought she did an excellent job of reiterating the stronger points of Bush's domestic agenda, and I was pleasantly suprised that she didn't shy away from commenting on security, something I thought she would avoid if simply because comments by the FL on security are probably largely disregarded.
I thought the Bush girls were aweful. I didn't think it would be possible to get worse than the Kerry girls and their hamster CPR story, but the Bush girls succeeded in surprising me. I thought they came off vain, ditzy and childish, and a will probably remind millions of potential voters between 18-25 of girls in High School they absolutely couldn't stand.
I also saw legitimate political danger in the twins speech. The fact was that their appearance fell directly into the preexisting stereotypes of the President (i.e vain, ditzy, childish,). Without a doubt that is the worst thing that can come out of any convention, but particularly this one. Any reenforcement of such "popular notions" is problematic. I almost feel bad about being harsh on them, but I think they did their father a genuine disservice. This is particularly true when you realize that increasingly John Stewart provides as much, if not more political news (and certainly the political opinions) for the average citizen than Tom Brokaw.
That being said, I don't think it played that badly inside Republican circles. Since conservatives don't consider Bush vain, ditzy or childish, but rather consider his mood of speech and general attitude refreshing and "down to earth," they expect, or are even pleased to see, the same thing from his children. I think there is a real danger with convention speeches to speak to the audience in the hall rather than the audience in the nation at large. But if you want a good convention bounce, and want to use it to generate a lead for november that you can keep, you have to come out of your convention having offered the best possible face for the country as a whole, not just for the delegates. After all, that's the point of putting on the moderate speakers, like McCain and Arnold.
Laura Bush's speech was also excellent. I thought it was humanizing of the President, (often a first lady's main job.) She showed him a dedicated family man, and of course the obligatory reference to the family pet. (Never ever underestimate the power of the First Dog. Checker's should have taught us all that.) I thought she did an excellent job of reiterating the stronger points of Bush's domestic agenda, and I was pleasantly suprised that she didn't shy away from commenting on security, something I thought she would avoid if simply because comments by the FL on security are probably largely disregarded.
I thought the Bush girls were aweful. I didn't think it would be possible to get worse than the Kerry girls and their hamster CPR story, but the Bush girls succeeded in surprising me. I thought they came off vain, ditzy and childish, and a will probably remind millions of potential voters between 18-25 of girls in High School they absolutely couldn't stand.
I also saw legitimate political danger in the twins speech. The fact was that their appearance fell directly into the preexisting stereotypes of the President (i.e vain, ditzy, childish,). Without a doubt that is the worst thing that can come out of any convention, but particularly this one. Any reenforcement of such "popular notions" is problematic. I almost feel bad about being harsh on them, but I think they did their father a genuine disservice. This is particularly true when you realize that increasingly John Stewart provides as much, if not more political news (and certainly the political opinions) for the average citizen than Tom Brokaw.
That being said, I don't think it played that badly inside Republican circles. Since conservatives don't consider Bush vain, ditzy or childish, but rather consider his mood of speech and general attitude refreshing and "down to earth," they expect, or are even pleased to see, the same thing from his children. I think there is a real danger with convention speeches to speak to the audience in the hall rather than the audience in the nation at large. But if you want a good convention bounce, and want to use it to generate a lead for november that you can keep, you have to come out of your convention having offered the best possible face for the country as a whole, not just for the delegates. After all, that's the point of putting on the moderate speakers, like McCain and Arnold.
<< Home