Mitt Romney's big, delirious party: the reaction from the right
Commentators seemed to think the Republican candidate ?�and the GOP ? pulled it off at the end of four bizarre days in Tampa
Did Mitt Romney pull it off? There's a good case to be made that the Republican convention was a success. Somehow, over the course of four delirious days, the GOP managed to hide its divisions and make a reasonable show of unified support for a candidate many members aren't happy with. Last night it looked like Romney's party. So was it something he said?
Romney's speech accepting the Republican nomination garnered more than the usual enthusiasm from conservative pundits, and they (mostly) didn't sound like they were faking it. A couple of big lines in the speech drew big drew exuberant cheers from the virtual bleachers, in particular, this one:
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. My promise... is to help you and your family.
Many commentators thought the candidate succeeded in presenting himself as a basically decent figure, as a good man. There was approval for Romney's strategy of not attacking Barack Obama the man but instead speaking to disappointment with his leadership. Another popular line:
You know there's something wrong with the job he's done as president if the best feeling you had is the day you voted for him.
But some right-leaning writers weren't impressed. They mainly objected to Romney's delivery, which they found to be flat or forced, and to his omission of policy discussion.
James Freeman, writing in the Wall Street Journal, picked up on the policy omission:
Successful evening for GOP in terms of showing Romney as a good man and a force for good in his business career, a man who understands the central problem of slow growth and joblessness afflicting us. And Clint, Marco and Mitt effectively made the case against Obama. But voters could have used a lot more discussion of how Romney's policies will turn around the US economy.
Talk show host Hugh Hewitt thought Romney looked the part he's auditioning for:
The National Review's Jim Geraghty thought Romney had an exceptional night, with "inexplicably, unimaginably improved delivery" that flipped him "from pretty good, often wooden candidate to astoundingly good, human, connecting candidate".
At times, he was scary good. No, really, where has that Mitt Romney been all year? All campaign? Since 2007? ...
But the Mitt Romney we saw tonight ... it's as if he had been saving up every bit of his inner emotional life, his soft, sentimental side, and let it all out. This was a speech that requires us to reexamine what we think we know about Romney.
Red State co-founder Ben Domenech also thought the candidate was particularly "on":
Romney's lack of polish as a politician helped him in this case because he came across as more "human," the Daily Caller's Matt Lewis thought:
The testimonials and personal stories, coupled with this terrific bio video, helped introduce Romney ? humanize him, really ? in a way that a speech by a polished politician could not. We already know Romney is competent, but this emotional connection was the missing ingredient lacking in his quest for the presidency.
Brit Hume of Fox News took the opposite view, finding the speech emotionally underwhelming. "This was not a speech designed to move an audience," he said on the air. Ed Morrissey of Hot Air took sharp exception:
All due respect to Brit Hume, who's watched more of these kinds of speeches than I ever dread to be afflicted by, but I think he may have gone into Mitt Romney's speech with some blinders on. Hume calls the speech 'good' and 'solid,' which it was, but it was also eloquent and moving at times, too. Hume is undoubtedly correct that Romney wanted to contrast Barack Obama's soaring oratory with some plain speaking, but it's a mistake to think that's all that Romney had to offer, either.
The last word belongs to John Podhoretz, the former speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan who never has stars in his eyes and didn't last night either. Romney made a "potent case" with an "artful touch," Podhoretz writes in the New York Post. "This wasn't a speech for the ages. But it may have been one of the most effective speeches by a presidential nominee in American history":
He and his speechwriters didn't try to pull off a killer soundbite, or to design an individual moment they hoped would lead every newscast.
No, the man himself was the message ? the businessman, the man of faith, the patriot, the loving husband, the caring father, the devoted son. The unflashy success story who's asking for your vote so he can roll up his sleeves and fix what's broken.The speech's lack of grandeur was the point. We've had enough of grandiosity. He wants to get to work.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/aug/31/republican-national-convention-reaction
inheritance tax pension calculator nhs pension pension forecast pensions uk
posted by pension333 @ 08:01
0 Comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home