And taking a large pinch of salt…Sarah Palin’s speech to the Republican Convention. September 4, 2008
Posted by WorldbyStorm in US Politics.trackback
Best commentary, written before the Convention speech, the following from Timothy Noah of Slate who suggests that after the last five or so days the bar is set so low for Palin she’d have a tough time not getting across it.
And he also notes that she is already an accomplished speaker being boosted by even more accomplished speech writers and let me add arriving at a Convention all too willing to support her in the face of what they perceive as an arrogant and antagonistic media.
Qualified or unqualified to be president, Palin certainly knows how to read from a teleprompter: She used to be a newscaster, for Pete’s sake, and as governor she’s shown herself to have a competent, even warm, presence when delivering a prepared speech. The speech itself will be written by Matthew Scully, an experienced speechwriter who’s served two stints in the White House, most recently for President George W. Bush. The speech’s content will be vetted within an inch of its life by the McCain campaign staff. It will be, at the very worst, an extremely competent and highly controlled performance.
And so it came to pass. Perhaps a little bit more shaky than expected at least in the preliminary stages, but she was able to deliver a strong sustained attack on her political opponents.
As the New York Times reports:
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska introduced herself to America before a roaring crowd at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night as “just your average hockey mom” who was as qualified as the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama, to be president of the United States.
I’m not so sure about that ‘average hockey mom’ line. We’ll see how it plays out in the longer term. After all, populism is great but it has its limitations. That said no doubt this is merely the start of phase 2 of trying to paint Obama as an elitist. But even there she runs into troubles:
“Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown,” Ms. Palin told the delegates in a speech that sought to eviscerate Mr. Obama, as delegates waved signs that said “I love hockey moms.” “And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves. I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”
It’s clever, but… is it true?
And she continued:
“I might add that in small towns we don’t quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren’t listening.”
And so it will continue. This is not to say she will not be effective. The sheer distinctiveness of her candidacy can only assist, but remember, that was the big set-piece, from here on in it’s going to be unguarded moments and on the fly statements. Plenty of scope there for upset. And meanwhile the digging digging digging is continuing apace in Alaska. Let’s hope that the cupboards are bare of skeletons.
And John Dickerson in Slate touches on this:
It was a great act—but it was an act, a one-shot show. Palin will have to keep it up for the next nine weeks, when there won’t be time to practice or the opportunity to sand down that line to keep it from sounding small and mean. This is a test Obama has already passed. And her sarcasm will wear thin quickly. Reagan could do it because he was a sunny optimist offering a vision of the future. Palin didn’t do much of that, other than by offering platitudes (hey, she had a lot of ground to cover).
It’s McCain’s job to talk about the future Thursday night, say Republicans. He can feel happy that, for the moment, his judgment about his pick seems to have been vindicated. Now he better hope he can do half the job his new sidekick did.
And the thought strikes that, suddenly, McCain the weaker part of the ticket – at least in political presentation terms? Tonight will tell all.
Obama has got some retaliatory words off the ground:
“You did not hear a single world about the economy,” Mr. Obama told an audience on in New Philadelphia, Ohio, before Ms. Palin’s speech. “Not once did they mention the hardships that people are going through.”
But I can’t help but feel that his riposte may be a little premature. I’d assume, just as Palin has tried to turn the small town/lack of experience trope around so will McCain try to reshape his response so as to avoid projecting the idea that he thinks the plain people of America are whinging about the economy.
It is entertaining the talking points coming out from the Republicans, not least that about her ‘executive experience’ which somehow trumps that of Obama. I’m no fan of the latter, but really… this is thin and unconvincing stuff.
And it’s a bit like arguing that the Mayor of Skerries (should such a position exist) is ready to be Taoiseach . Perhaps. But perhaps not. One could reasonably ask for more convincing bona fides and bona fides there are none…
And returning to Noah’s thoughts:
“A star was born here tonight in St. Paul,” they will say. “This speech eliminates any doubt that Palin is ready for prime time,” they will say. The extravagance of the praise will reflect, in part, the press’s guilty feelings about its recent excesses in beating Palin up. Some talking heads may even crow that this splendid performance shows Palin is ready to be president, should tragedy befall President McCain.
Don’t believe a word of it. Palin may or may not be ready, but her speech won’t tell you anything about that, and the commentary will tell you less than nothing.
Seems about right to me.
Not least because outside medialand Obama begins to pull away. The bounce that we were breathlessly told didn’t exist at the weekend suddenly appears, and with a vengeance. It won’t last of course, the fact that Palin can speak forcefully will put paid to that. There are other issues. Sure, McCain Palin as a brand is new. But it’s still contained within the Republican wrapper and however much Palin energises their base it may simply be that as in 2000 after eight years of the Democrats that elusive concept of ‘change’ is more attractive. But look again at the electoral college summary which has remained constant – in the sense that it is slowly moving Democrat – over weeks now. It’s Obama’s for the taking. Next stop the debates…
It’s a little hard to take her attack on Washington insiders or Fred Thompson’s on the cocktail party circuit seriously when the camera cuts to Cindy McCain. Of course she’s not the candidate.
Of course, the National Enquirer now have a team on the ground in Alaska. And those guys are pros.
It’s incredible that this ‘political elite’ stuff still works. Who exactly has been calling the shots in Washington for the last 8 years? I thought it was the Republicans. Shades of the Healy Raes and such – ‘we’re Fianna Fail, but we’re not Dublin’.
Why would anybody think it would cease to work?
“And it’s a bit like arguing that the Mayor of Skerries (should such a position exist) is ready to be Taoiseach”
Ah, but she wasn’t just the Mayor of Skerries, WBS. For two years she was also the … well, the Irish equivalent of a state governor. Not a huge amount of time, but it’s more practical administration experience than Obama has got. People in America are going to notice that and draw their own conclusions.
I was up late and saw her speech live last night. Not hugely impressive but solid and likely to please the party faithful as well as reluctant conservatives who aren’t sure about McCain.
Unless I mistake myself it has a Lord Mayor (see 1985. Odd that it’s still the RNLI.
Ah, but she wasn’t just the Mayor of Skerries, WBS. For two years she was also the … well, the Irish equivalent of a state governor.
Something like the mayor of Skerries, then. Because the population of Alaska is about 0.2% of the total US population. The population of Skerries is about 0.2% of the total population of the Republic of Ireland.
“Because the population of Alaska is about 0.2% of the total US population”
But still a lot more than Skerries in real terms. In the millions, I believe.
In real terms, your point makes no sense. WbS’s observation was that arguing that Sarah Palin is ready to become president of the United States is a bit like arguing that the Mayor of Skerries (should such a position exist) is ready to be Taoiseach. The correct term for this is analogy. He didn’t observe that it is a bit like arguing that the Mayor of Skerries is ready to be president of the United States.
Your argumentation is analogous to someone arguing that Orangemen walking down the Garvaghy Road is not like the Ku Klux Klan walking through Harlem because the Ku Klux Klan never walk down the Garvaghy Road.
Sorry Craig, Alsaka is about 600,000. Love the way the conservatives gone on about Palin family getting it and Democrats familes not – THATS BECAUSE MOST DEMS TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO FUCKING DO IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES – GOD DAM AMERICA
should read THATS BECAUSE MOST DEMS NOT TELLING PEOPLE WHAT TO FUCKING DO IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES –
but still – GOD DAM AMERICA
The Healy Rae comparison struck me too in large part because I was thinking in terms of her time as Mayor of a place that is smaller than Killarney, yet she had hired an administrator as Mayor! One of the few places in Alaska to do so. And she has not yet been Governor for 2 years, it’s more like 18 months. And one would have to wonder who is running Alaska at the moment while she is out campaigning? After all, it is kinda far away from the lower 48 and if it is the sort of place that you can leave in neutral for a couple of months while you job hunt elsewhere then it can’t really amount to that much executive experience now can it?
But still a lot more than Skerries in real terms. In the millions, I believe.
Wikipedia tells us that a 2007 estimate for the population was 683,478.
In so far as I care, which is less and less each day from what began at a low base anyway, the Democrats would be most unwise to openly consider the governorship of a small state a point against a candidate, since small states are notoriously over-represented in the electoral college.
Though the key swing states in the last couple of elections, Ohio and Florida, have been reasonably sized.
I can’t help but think that the Democrats are really making a big mistake constantly comparing their top of the ticket to the bottom of the Republican ticket.
I think it’s sufficient to note that we have little by way of real experience to measure what sort of President any of the top 4 will be. Maybe that’s a response to the fact that so many people are turned off Bush considering he had 6 years as governor of one of the largest states. So, clearly, this year experience counts for less. The Democrats should ignore the experience factor or keep talking about how GW Bush was experienced and look where that got us.
As George Will loves to point out the most experienced, most ready President ever was James Buchanan, possibly the worst President in American history.
A lot depends as well on what the governor’s job is. I’m no expert in the Alaskan constitution, but there are some states where it’s a real hands-on position. On the other hand, there are some where it’s more like a ceremonial presidency. Far as I can figure, W’s main executive duties in Texas were cutting ribbons and signing death warrants.
“It’s the same shape as the scissors make when they’re open, W”
ejh and Eagle, you make substantially the same point, interesting!
An American friend commented over the summer that there was one good thing about the Bush regime: it was so awful, at home as well as abroad, that it would sink the Republican right for a generation.
The point of Sarah Palin is to refute that. She is right wing Republicanism with with all neocon traces removed. Her function is to make conservatism acceptable again.
The neocons are men who concern themselves with foreign policy and a pro-business agenda; Palin’s a woman who knows nothing about foreign policy and whose conservatism is social. There’s not much evidence that Cheney and co care about social conservatism; Palin is as pro-family and anti-choice as they come.
The gamble is that the neocon agenda can be stripped away and what is left will be a conservatism that is still attractive enough to win a presidential election – even though the man at the top of the ticket doesn’t share much of it. Can it happen?
That sounds about right, although whether it is as ordered in its implementation is open to question. Certainly McCain was looking at Lieberman as recently as Wednesday last week. BUt then, he presumably wasn’t given the option to go that way at the end…
Although the flip side of that is that McCain isn’t that much of a social conservative, and for years now has basically been a foreign policy senator. The only domestic issue he seems to have concerned himself with recently being the famous Bridge to Nowhere. A balanced ticket, then?
Now that the preliminaries are over and each party has selected its candidate the contest really begins. Although the vice-presidential choices seldom affect the outcome Biden’s mouth is a clear and on-going danger to Obama.
Obama can win without Ohio and Florida although he would need Virginia and Colorado. A good source where one can play around with maps and numbers is:
http://www.270towin.com/
McCain is a social conservative on his voting record, he just hasn’t marketed himself on that basis.
Not having a vote in all this, I’m wondering, for those that do, would the McCain/Palin ticket incline people to hold the nose for the Democrats, or not? Or in other words are those two socially (and fiscally) conservative enough to make even Obama/Biden palatable in comparison?
Not for me. If I was going to vote Democrat on the basis of the Republican being worse, I would have made that decision already.
Anecdotally I’ve heard of some centrists who were considering McCain changing to Obama because of this, though.
Palin consolidates the republican base in the red states, and probably has some appeal to Perot-type independents.
But McCain could win 28 states, including Ohio and Florida and still lose. This scenario would have Obama winning West Coast, East Coast,(minus N.H), plus D.C., Hawaii, the upper Mid-West, and Colorado.
The republicans need to win all the south to win, and Obama could take Virginia. But all is still speculation.
It comes down to 50 separate state contests (plus D.C). And in the key states the result will depend on voter registration and turn-out.
And African-Americans are enthused. Obama’s experience as a community organizer could be decisive. He has built a very effective organization-as Hillary learned too late.
Interesting take, CL. I wonder if Palin’s rather unlikeable crack about his ‘community organiser’ experience will come back to haunt her?
Wednesday, that’s reasonable. And I’d imagine there must be a fair number of others who’d take the same view.
Yeah, the centrists might shift back to the Democrats. That too might come back to haunt McCain if the centre ground does hold the key to the contest in the way that it seemed to months back.
“The students who ventured into the segregated South – suffering threats and even death while persuading black citizens to register – were community organizers. So were the union activists who fought to win basic protections like the minimum wage and the 40-hour work week.”-Errol Louis, NY Daily News
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/09/07/2008-09-07_gop_pols_latest_slur_proves_just_how_out.html
I wonder if Palin’s rather unlikeable crack about his ‘community organiser’ experience will come back to haunt her?
He’s already responded to that, pointing out that it shows how far removed the Republican elite are from ordinary people. There’s definitely mileage in it for him, given that the level of volunteerism in the US is staggeringly high, and cuts across ideological and party lines.
Good! I’m immune to Obama’s charms, seen his type before haven’t we all, but I see him as least worst option, and a ticket with Palin on it as absolutely the worst option.
Interesting thing on Slate today CL on that very issue about the definition of community organizers.