Thoughts On 'Palin Night'
I know these political conventions are generally worthless to anyone except hardcore party droids (or political nerds, I say self-deprecatingly). However, I thought I'd tune in to see what Palin's night at the Republican National Convention would be all about.
Apparently, it was about these major three factoids:
1. Obama is a formidable opponent worth spending lots of time talking about while not mentioning his name
2. McCain was an American POW
3. Palin is a hockey mom/governor of Alaska
If there was any other fibrous material there, I missed it.
It was mentioned more than a half-dozen times that McCain is/was/will be a "maverick" (surprise!) although I (and most swing voters/independents) have a hard time believing that anymore since, just last year, he voted alongside Dubya 95% of the time and on Republican party line 90% of the time. Swing/independent voters that like the idea of "Change And/Or Hope In Washington" will probably not find those stats particularly "maverick-like." Anyway, I digress.
I heard "red meat night" mentioned several times by commentators, which pretty much sums it all up. The speeches were teeth gnashing, but pretty hollow; the evening wouldn't be especially compelling to anybody except unwavering Republicans.
I don't think swing or independent voters will be particularly compelled by the overall negative and aggressive spirit of the evening, and I don't think any of us know any more about Palin after her speech other than she can deliver one just fine.
Yet, despite my "whatever" take on the evening, true blue Republicans loved it all, I'm sure. If anything, the evening may allow social conservatives to feel a bit warmer and fuzzier while they vote for McCain ... who they don't really like very much (but were going to vote for anyway).
Apparently, it was about these major three factoids:
1. Obama is a formidable opponent worth spending lots of time talking about while not mentioning his name
2. McCain was an American POW
3. Palin is a hockey mom/governor of Alaska
If there was any other fibrous material there, I missed it.
It was mentioned more than a half-dozen times that McCain is/was/will be a "maverick" (surprise!) although I (and most swing voters/independents) have a hard time believing that anymore since, just last year, he voted alongside Dubya 95% of the time and on Republican party line 90% of the time. Swing/independent voters that like the idea of "Change And/Or Hope In Washington" will probably not find those stats particularly "maverick-like." Anyway, I digress.
I heard "red meat night" mentioned several times by commentators, which pretty much sums it all up. The speeches were teeth gnashing, but pretty hollow; the evening wouldn't be especially compelling to anybody except unwavering Republicans.
I don't think swing or independent voters will be particularly compelled by the overall negative and aggressive spirit of the evening, and I don't think any of us know any more about Palin after her speech other than she can deliver one just fine.
Yet, despite my "whatever" take on the evening, true blue Republicans loved it all, I'm sure. If anything, the evening may allow social conservatives to feel a bit warmer and fuzzier while they vote for McCain ... who they don't really like very much (but were going to vote for anyway).
posted by Strother | 11:00 PM
6 Comments:
I think Palin spoke directly to you, Erin! Glad you enjoyed it and it made you feel better about your McCain choice.
I think we all figured if Sarah Palin would invigorate anybody, it would be those that fit best into social conservative or 'one-issue-Republican' categories. However, I'll say it again; those subgroups were already planning to vote for McCain ... or at least not for Obama.
A longtime Republican — an actual fiscal conservative — relative of mine is pretty helpless in this race; he says there's no one for him to vote for. I can see why.
Democrats are terrified of Sarah Palin because the first successful woman on a national ticket just might be a conservative. Watching the speech last night, I was wondering why she wasn't the nominee. She's great, and she'll make a great Vice President.
The change I want is for the government to leave me alone. If McCain-Palin will leave me alone and let me keep more of my own money, then that's who I will be voting for. If I wanted a bigger nanny-state, then Obama-Biden will be the ticket. As a country, I don't think we can afford the change Obama is offering. Since Obama and other liberal Democrats see this country in another Great Depression, they offer more New Deal-type programs. That's not change. If more taxes and bigger government were the answer, then socialist countries would be the economic superpowers of the world.
If McCain-Palin will leave me alone and let me keep more of my own money, then that's who I will be voting for.
Maybe either ticket will allow you to keep more of your own money. Has either McCain or Obama said firmly who will pay less taxes in their respective administrations? I’m sure that those of us who care about that tidbit of info will stand by for the hard numbers?
But the fact is that both McCain and Obama want to spend a chunk of your tax dollars on something or another. Will you vote to spend more on war programs overseas or on social programs at home? BP readers, you have no choice in this election to vote for a fiscal conservative who wants to stop spending trillions in interventionist policy abroad and cut wasteful spending at home.
Personally, and I don’t know about you, but I hate “wasteful spending” of tax dollars. Yet we all have different ideas about what is “wasteful spending” and what is worthwhile.
If more taxes and bigger government were the answer, then socialist countries would be the economic superpowers of the world.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think socialist countries tax more and have bigger governments in order to be the economic superpowers of the world. I think their motivations lie elsewhere. Anyway.
Strother opines: "It was mentioned more than a half-dozen times that McCain is/was/will be a "maverick" (surprise!) although I (and most swing voters/independents) have a hard time believing that anymore since, just last year, he voted alongside Dubya 95% of the time and on Republican party line 90% of the time. Swing/independent voters that like the idea of "Change And/Or Hope In Washington" will probably not find those stats particularly "maverick-like.""
When did you become a swing voter? I don't know many swing voters who use Democrat talking points unless they were going to vote that way to begin with. Besides, I don't see how a legislator can vote alongside a president any percent of the time because a president doesn't vote on anything. Legislators vote on bills, amendments, amendments to amendments, etc. Presidents either sign or veto the finished product. Since Democrats have controlled Congress for the past two years, I would assume that any bills Bush signed during that period had bipartisan support. I'm curious how the 95% came to being because on certain liberal sites, they list 90%, and here you list it as 95%.
S: "I don't think swing or independent voters will be particularly compelled by the overall negative and aggressive spirit of the evening, and I don't think any of us know any more about Palin after her speech other than she can deliver one just fine." ... "Yet, despite my "whatever" take on the evening, true blue Republicans loved it all, I'm sure. If anything, the evening may allow social conservatives to feel a bit warmer and fuzzier while they vote for McCain ... who they don't really like very much (but were going to vote for anyway)."
I didn't realize you had the pulse of "swing or independent voters." Besides, elections aren't decided by "swing or independent voters." Go talk to anybody who claims to be an independent and you can figure out pretty quick which way that person leans politically. People pretty much already know who they are going to vote for... The deal now is to get your voters to the polls. That's why people on the left are scared about Palin: Before Palin, McCain's support was lukewarm at best among his base. If they aren't excited, they will still probably vote, but they won't go and knock on doors, work at the polls, put up signs, work the phone banks, etc. Now with the Palin pick, and the left's treatment of her and her family, the base is fired up and ready to go and do what they can for the McCain-Palin ticket. I'm not saying that McCain-Palin is a sure thing to win now in the fall, but I believe McCain has a much better chance to win now with Palin and a fired-up base than he did before.
I believe McCain has a much better chance to win now with Palin and a fired-up base than he did before.
We shall soon see ...
Post a Comment
<< Home