I thought the speech was generally good, although he stumbled over words in places (smart of him to joke about it, though, and that bit about a certain swagger that in TX they call ‘walking’ was easily the funniest line of the speech). I winced at the stuff about gay marriage – it’s where I essentially break with the President and my party – and you’d think that a man who wanted to talk about fiscal responsibility might’ve vetoed at least one bill by now, but he was at his best when talking about natsec and military issues, and in my prejudiced opinion that best was excellent.
How it’ll play with the swing voters is going to be debated, chewed and argued for the rest of the week, of course. If not the next month.
Moe
PS: I will say this once. My toleration for personal attacks made against anyone who reads or contributes to this weblog is at an all-time low. Take the time to aim your spleen properly; which is to say, away from the people who comment or blog here.
The rhetoric on freedom was very pretty, but he has shown such utter disregard for it here, and its prospects in Iraq and Afghanistan look so dim right now, that it left me entirely cold and made me slightly angry.
Otherwise, same old, same old.
And one more thing: I’m glad he went to Ground Zero but any president would have done the same, and every major elected official from New York did the same. I’m glad he got along with them and wasn’t socially awkward, but I think Kerry done just as well. Gore might have been a little stiffer, but then Bush was not a tenth as reassuring as Giuliani.
It was not an act of heroism when Bush did it anymore than when Chuck Schumer did. New Yorkers have ridden the subways thousands of times by now, during all the alerts. It’s not heroism–it’s something we have to do to do our jobs. It sure as hell is not reason to elect us President.
I guess it turns out the air was contaminated, so there was an aspect of physical danger, but tens of thousands of New Yorkers breathed much more of contaminated air than Bush did.
That’s not heroism. Heroism is rushing back into the building to save someone. Or, I daresay, risking your life to pull someone from the river, even it was decades ago.
Moe, re your ps – perhaps you could try to steer discussion here away from Who’s-smearing-whose-patriotism to actual policy issues. I’m feeling very angry lately, and it’s just not in my nature; and things are likely to get worse. The w-s-w-p stuff draws the eye like a highway accident but it’s better to keep one’s attention on the road…
“Moe, re your ps – perhaps you could try to steer discussion here away from Who’s-smearing-whose-patriotism to actual policy issues.”
Probably wise.
rilkefan: I’m feeling very angry lately, and it’s just not in my nature; and things are likely to get worse.
I’ve refrained from commenting in several threads for precisely that reason. [No, really.] It doesn’t appear to have done much for my temperament, but at least I get to bathe in the moral superiority that comes from not throwing gasoline on the fire.
Yeah, really. Virtue isn’t even its own reward.
Oh, the topic?
Well, I gotta admit, my primary response — other than the snarky joy of MST3King the speech — was embarrassment. Embarrassment that we could well lose to a guy (and a speech) like that. Que sera.
Incidentally: it’s been my impression that the Republican Convention has been substantially more negative than the Democratic Convention in their major speeches (i.e. the bulk of the prime-time televised coverage). Does that track with other people’s observations? If so, what are people’s opinions on the matter?
Anarch: Incidentally: it’s been my impression that the Republican Convention has been substantially more negative than the Democratic Convention in their major speeches (i.e. the bulk of the prime-time televised coverage). Does that track with other people’s observations? If so, what are people’s opinions on the matter?
I see the same thing. Karl Rove said early on that the convention would be more positive than the DNC was, so I’m inclined to trust my perception.
Regarding the policy content of Bush’s speech, can anyone find any specifics on Bush’s idea for overhauling the tax system? A quick perusal of the official campaign site left me emptyhanded. All I can figure out is that the new system will be “simpler” and will both “encourage saving and investment” and “improve the economy”. Oh, and there is a confusing chart showing income tax revenue as a percentage of GDP over the next ten years that is simply labeled “Without the President’s Tax Relief, The Income Tax will Take More Out of the Economy Than Ever Before.”
I’m increasingly becoming convinced that the tax system does need an overhaul, but I suspect Bush has very different “reforms” in mind than do I. I’d like to test that hypothesis by actually seeing what his proposal looks like.
I actually reacted rather well to the speech. The first half was terrible but the second half was quite good as rhetoric goes.
Additionally: partisanship has GONE WILD!
partisanship has GONE WILD!
Ow! Ouchouchouchouchouch!!
My head just exploded, trying to imagine the RNC delegates flashing their breasts/ penis hats for the cameras …