All those lines about the celebrity culture surrounding Obama, the lefties' deification of him as the great hope of the party, that all seems pretty silly now, eh?
The Republicans have been big so far about putting on their "American hats," which has inspired me to put on my discourse analysis hat. Last night's Gov-Palin-speech was very very heavy on the rhetorical flourishes, which Republicans have suggested tend to obfuscate a lack of substance when deployed by Obama. In keeping, I tried to push on a few of Gov Palin's rhetorical highlights. Here are a few of my digital margin notes on Palin's speech:
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves. With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost, there was no hope for this candidate, who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.
So, right from the beginning you can see what the driving force of this speech will be: we the Republicans are the outsiders. The Washington experts don't get us, the media pundits don't get us. When we look bad on TV and in all the stories all over the world, it's because we are misunderstood. Seems off topic, if "topic" is "real problems facing the country"; and yet I continue to be staggered at how well this meme sells.
The voters knew better, and maybe that's because they realized there's a time for politics and a time for leadership, a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
False opposition. How are these not all the same time? Define "politics" in this equation.
So I signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education even better. And when I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and I knew their families, too.
Again, the thrust here is anti-voter analysis? Surely Gov. Palin knows that as VP one would not have the luxury of knowing all constituents personally. Is having the time/geographic scope to personally know all constituents a credential in and of itself?
I guess -- I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.
Nasty. The much-lauded grass roots voters, those who are most "energized" by the VP pick, are community organizers. Martin Luther KIng Jr was a community organizer. If state-sponsored service is the only service that counts, say so plainly.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes and whoever is listening John McCain is the same man.
Dicey. Take, for example: John McCain has in this last week noted (rightly) that candidate's families are not appropriate subjects of political discourse, and yet famously made jokes about Chelsea Clinton's ugliness. One doubts he made such jokes when HRC was listening.
Well, I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment. And I've learned quickly these last few days that, if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone. But -- now, here's a little newsflash. Here's a little newsflash for those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion. I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this great country.
Again, not running against media, right? Strategy of victimization as selling point is perhaps not most substantive one available.
We suspended the state fuel tax and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere.
Insufficient evidence. Hired lobbyist secured $27 million in earmarks during tenure as Mayor. Bridge to Nowhere was supported before rejected, the latter happening once it became nationally unpopular and emblematic of earmarking.
But the fact that drilling, though, won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
True. And yet - is anyone advocating doing nothing at all? Please support this implication.
And now, I've noticed a pattern with our opponent, and maybe you have, too. We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers, and there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
Again, I do think this approach - devoted followers = lack of substance - is going to seem radically less effective after a quick scan or morning headlines and rightie blogs.
But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot...When that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet?
Nasty and, ironically, totally without substance. "Turning back the waters?" What does that even mean? A metaphor for parting the Red Sea? Mixed with a metaphor about overwrought environmentalism? Empty rhetoric here, please support with content.
Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.
Rudy's line. Also, nasty. Also demonstrative of gross misunderstanding of international law. Being opposed to torture is only shamefully equated with "worrying" about Miranda rights.
And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Inaccurate. Non-partisan
Tax Policy Center provides accurate info re: comparative tax plans.
My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.
Nasty. Perhaps true, in some strictly semiotic way, but implication is that Obama has campaigned on the strength of believing the presidency to be a journey of personal discovery. Patently false.
This world of threats and dangers, it's not just a community and it doesn't just need an organizer. And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they're always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely: There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you.
Sen McCain served his country and in an abstract and ideological framework where"American international and military interests in the 1960s and 70s" are understood to mean "me," then yes, John McCain has fought for me. But if "me" means "ideals, legislation, and policy I endorse and value" then no, John McCain has not fought for me. Please be more clear with referents.
I could go on with this, but I really have a class to prep. Please, feel free to fill in gaps in comments.
Labels: John "100 years" McCain, obama, Palin, republicans
