Mitt's speech

[JoeB131]

If you were looking for flaming attacks on Obama, you would be disappointed, that's not Mitt Romney.

Of you were looking for a theatrical speech full of "Wow" and Flowery Rheotric, that's not Romney either.

He's the man who accomplishes things and gets the job done in a quiet way with class and integrity.

I'd rather have him at the helm of this sinking ship than a captain who can give a fire and brimstone speeach and accomplish nothing. I'll take Romney in a heartbeat.

You'd take Romney no matter what he was, that's the problem.

You are buying a pig in a poke.

What a coincidence! I was going to say that about you and Obama! (And I would be right!)

I know EXACTLY what I'm getting with Obama.

A guy who means well, who maybe has some wrong ideas, but usually tries to do things for the right reasons.

I know I still have a job today because of actions he took in 2009.

Romney, we are getting a guy who doesn't care about the working man, doesn't care about families, I think doesn't even give a shit about anyone outside his cult.

 

[JoeB131]

Yea, I'd take a pig in a poke over the current clown in the white house. Fortunately, I don't have to. We have a brilliant problem solver with the soul of America in his head and heart. The brass ceaselessness that has been exhibited in the last 4 years is enough.

It's time we have a president that stands proud for the love of his country, it's people and the job creators. Looks like a statesman to me, talks like a statesman, has spent his life helping others and understands the fragile economy we are living.

Yea, anyone but Obama.

No, he spent his eniter life ******* working people. With borrowed money and goverment bailouts. But he says a few things you want to hear, and you are all creaming in your jeans over him....

Even though he's been exactly the oppossite of that when he held public office.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yea, I'd take a pig in a poke over the current clown in the white house. Fortunately, I don't have to. We have a brilliant problem solver with the soul of America in his head and heart. The brass ceaselessness that has been exhibited in the last 4 years is enough.

It's time we have a president that stands proud for the love of his country, it's people and the job creators. Looks like a statesman to me, talks like a statesman, has spent his life helping others and understands the fragile economy we are living.

Yea, anyone but Obama.

No, he spent his eniter life ******* working people. With borrowed money and goverment bailouts. But he says a few things you want to hear, and you are all creaming in your jeans over him....

Even though he's been exactly the oppossite of that when he held public office.

You are so full of crap, I can't believe you are as ignorant as your posts.

 

[Unkotare]

No, he spent his eniter[sic] life ******* working people.

Why don't you just put your bigotry-driven, idiotic, pseudo-marxist bullshit in your sig line and save yourself the trouble of posting essentially the same stupid shit over and over and over?

 

[Wetnibbler]

Right. "Usual Suspects" time again. And it's an interestingly mixed bag of responses....

Taegan Goddard at Political WIre: "Mitt Romney accepted the Republican presidential nomination but gave a speech that was flat. He started slowly, often rambling, but gradually moved to a more powerful, scolding tone. It was utterly predictable and lacked specifics, but he checked off most of the important topics... Romney just isn't an inspiring speaker. It was not worthy of the moment."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo: "I thought the first half to 2/3 of the speech were really weak, disjointed, kind of rambling... That changed in the last ten or fifteen minutes - it finally developed some verve and direction. In speech terms it was fairly solid at the end... But on balance, I thought it was fairly weak as a speech. He's the underdog and he's the guy who needs to have a galvanizing introduction to the general public. In those terms, it was a missed opportunity. A pretty big one."

WIll Wilkinson at The Economist: "Mr Romney's acceptance speech didn't rock the rafters, but that's not his style. What he did manage to do was, for once, make himself feel emotionally present, and not so canned. He told Americans they deserve better than Obama, and he made the case that he'll do better as clearly and forcefully as he ever has. I don't think he has it in him to do much better. It may be good enough."

Peter Suderman at Reason.com: "Romney managed to say even less about what he would do as president than he usually does. Despite Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan's promise earlier today that Romney would discuss his plans for the country in "granular" detail, Romney offered almost nothing in the way of a governing vision, much less specific legislative goals. Instead, he criticized Obama for running up too much debt, and, in practically the same breath, for cutting spending on Medicare and the defense budget. Vote Republican!"

Joe Klein at TIme Magazine: "I am not sure the speech was 'a game-changer.' I am not sure it 'moved the needle.' I’m not sure it will be remembered beyond tomorrow, or that it was watched by sufficient numbers of people tonight to make a difference. But it did lay down a subtle challenge for the President: Explain why your contract should be extended. Explain it in a way we can understand. And it laid down a stylistic challenge as well: in these difficult times, is it really necessary for you to accept your nomination in a football field in front of 74,000 people (as Obama will next week)? Do we really need those bread and circuses?"

Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Beast: "My instant verdict? A good night for improving Mitt's personal image; but a sad evening for an actual reality-based critique of Obama's record, or a coherent set of proposals for the future... In a word: mediocre, and deeply dishonest as an argument. As a way to soften his awful image: B +."


And what I think, given a few other quick looks at other reviews that are saying pretty much the same things that you see above, is the real "bottom line" as noted by Jonathan Bernstein at the WaPo:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A generic speech and a generic convention for a generic Republican candidate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think it gets much more....involved than that.


A little annoyed -- and even maybe dismayed -- that some of the "Pros From Dover" that hang out at the National Review and the Weekly Standard and the like aren't readily available. But if they show up, I'll list and link them out for folks to take a look.

 

[JoeB131]

Yea, I'd take a pig in a poke over the current clown in the white house. Fortunately, I don't have to. We have a brilliant problem solver with the soul of America in his head and heart. The brass ceaselessness that has been exhibited in the last 4 years is enough.

It's time we have a president that stands proud for the love of his country, it's people and the job creators. Looks like a statesman to me, talks like a statesman, has spent his life helping others and understands the fragile economy we are living.

Yea, anyone but Obama.

No, he spent his eniter life ******* working people. With borrowed money and goverment bailouts. But he says a few things you want to hear, and you are all creaming in your jeans over him....

Even though he's been exactly the oppossite of that when he held public office.

You are so full of crap, I can't believe you are as ignorant as your posts.

Well, I have no such doubts about you. I really think you are as ignorant as the stuff you post.

Doesn't take away from my point. Romney put thousands of people out of good paying jobs while lining his pockets with borrowed money and government contracts... and you guys think he's a genius....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Great speech. He went on and on about the destruction Republican policies have caused this country and then got mad and said Obama hasn't cleaned up Republican mess fast enough.

Only he forgot to mention "obstructionism". Does everyone know what "obstructionism" is?

he sounded and looked like what you would sound and look like if you were speaking at the Democratic Convention Dean....Bullshit with a smile.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The country is a helluva lot better off than when he came in...we get it, your party ruined us for years- a lot of happy horseshytte is Mitt's plan.

Frankie.....why am i delivering more Unemployment checks now as compared to 3-4 years ago and why am i still delivering A LOT of Certified Letters to homeowners from the Bank.....maybe a rich **** like you is better off.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

How come everyone in the audience looks "white"?

how come you always sound like a racist?.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

I know, let's cut taxes on the bloated rich, destroy Medicare and health reform, raise taxes and fees on the nonrich, let corporate cheats run wild, cut aid to states and localities, raise military spending to more than the rest of the world combined, and worry about the debt in 2035. Absolute idiocy, dupes.

geezus Frankie....at least put the words in a different order......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh my God. Are they playing "James Brown"?????

YOU....have a God?......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

From seeing the clips this morning; he looked and sounded as though he was delivering a eulogy.

Really, was this the best you guys could do?

The best were smart enough not to run.

 

[PixieStix]

From seeing the clips this morning; he looked and sounded as though he was delivering a eulogy.

Really, was this the best you guys could do?

What do you want from a future President? A Hollywood production, or reality?

Oh wait....never mind

 

[candycorn]

From seeing the clips this morning; he looked and sounded as though he was delivering a eulogy.

Really, was this the best you guys could do?

The best were smart enough not to run.

I think you're right. When you consider the field; except for Huntsman, he may have been the best out there. He's a great man but Politics is a profession that he hasn't come close to mastering.

 

[PixieStix]

even in the thread about mitt's speech poor mitt is upstaged by clint eastwood.

Not in my mind

Mitt Romney Acceptance Speech at the Republican National Convention (C-SPAN) - Full Speech - YouTube

 

[Wetnibbler]

First of the "Morning Afters" that I've seen....and it's a big one.

WIlliam Kristol at The Weekly Standard:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned."

"Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney's silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never noticed it myself in my reviewing the speech; gotta wonder who else did and/or didn't (Well, now that Kristol has pointed it out, it's going to get some play, but prior to that....)?


At any rate, there are a few more "Morning Afters", and like the first reactions, a lotta ambivilence....

Bob Wright at The Atlantic: "I realize convention speeches aren't the place for think-tank-worthy critiques of an incumbent's foreign policy. But couldn't Romney do better than spout neocon abstractions that, when fleshed out, don't make any sense? He's so allergic to concrete specificity that he didn't even mention the war America is currently involved in!"

Daniel Larison at The American Conservative: "Calling out Putin by name in this speech may get him a few cheers from delegates and some glowing reviews from his stenographers in the media, but it will confirm Putin in his assumption that Americans aren’t to be trusted and should be viewed with suspicion. Romney has gone out of his way to make sure that relations with Russia will sour if he is elected, and I don’t think he or his advisers have thought through what that might mean for the U.S. The same goes for all of the other foreign policy positions the Romney campaign has taken so far."

Noah Millman, also writing for The American Conservative: "...[Quite] plainly, Mitt Romney has no intention of saying anything that his audience doesn’t want to hear, and what he thinks his audience wants to hear is that America is great, and the only reason everything isn’t hunky dory is that we are led by a man who doesn’t understand that America is great. So believe in Mitt Romney, who believes in America, and trust that he will do the right things to steer America toward brighter shores. That’s the whole speech, and it’s the whole campaign. It’s really that infantilizing."

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight: "It was a speech that Mr. Romney’s pollsters and consultants should have been pleased with, although it may have suffered from trying to check too many focus-group-approved boxes. But most of all, and in contrast to Mr. Romney’s selection of Mr. Ryan, it was full of the choices that a candidate makes when he thinks he can win the election by running a by-the-book campaign."

David Frum at The Daily Beast: "Absent from the speech were the rancor and apocalyptic fervor that have gripped so much of the Republican party since the election of Barack Obama. The Mitt Romney on that stage was not angry at Barack Obama - just terribly, terribly disappointed."

Chuck Todd, et.al. at MSNBC's First Read: "Yesterday, we wrote that Mitt Romney had four objectives with his acceptance speech: 1) better introduce himself to the public, 2) close the empathy gap, 3) get American voters to be comfortable with him as president, and 4) put more meat on the policy bone. He accomplished those first two goals, especially if you were in the convention hall or watching the live feed in the 8:00 pm hour...But on the last two? Not as much. On getting American voters more comfortable with him as president, Romney made a stronger case -- and devoted more time -- to why Obama should be fired than why Romney should be hired...By not putting more meat on the policy bone and by not differentiating his policies from Bush’s, Romney left the Obama campaign a lot of room to work with."


**whew**

Right. a few days to Charlotte; we may want to take a bit of a breahter before the madness begins again.....

 

[candycorn]

First of the "Morning Afters" that I've seen....and it's a big one.

WIlliam Kristol at The Weekly Standard:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned."

"Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney's silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never noticed it myself in my reviewing the speech; gotta wonder who else did and/or didn't (Well, now that Kristol has pointed it out, it's going to get some play, but prior to that....)?


At any rate, there are a few more "Morning Afters", and like the first reactions, a lotta ambivilence....

Bob Wright at The Atlantic: "I realize convention speeches aren't the place for think-tank-worthy critiques of an incumbent's foreign policy. But couldn't Romney do better than spout neocon abstractions that, when fleshed out, don't make any sense? He's so allergic to concrete specificity that he didn't even mention the war America is currently involved in!"

Daniel Larison at The American Conservative: "Calling out Putin by name in this speech may get him a few cheers from delegates and some glowing reviews from his stenographers in the media, but it will confirm Putin in his assumption that Americans aren’t to be trusted and should be viewed with suspicion. Romney has gone out of his way to make sure that relations with Russia will sour if he is elected, and I don’t think he or his advisers have thought through what that might mean for the U.S. The same goes for all of the other foreign policy positions the Romney campaign has taken so far."

Noah Millman, also writing for The American Conservative: "...[Quite] plainly, Mitt Romney has no intention of saying anything that his audience doesn’t want to hear, and what he thinks his audience wants to hear is that America is great, and the only reason everything isn’t hunky dory is that we are led by a man who doesn’t understand that America is great. So believe in Mitt Romney, who believes in America, and trust that he will do the right things to steer America toward brighter shores. That’s the whole speech, and it’s the whole campaign. It’s really that infantilizing."

Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight: "It was a speech that Mr. Romney’s pollsters and consultants should have been pleased with, although it may have suffered from trying to check too many focus-group-approved boxes. But most of all, and in contrast to Mr. Romney’s selection of Mr. Ryan, it was full of the choices that a candidate makes when he thinks he can win the election by running a by-the-book campaign."

David Frum at The Daily Beast: "Absent from the speech were the rancor and apocalyptic fervor that have gripped so much of the Republican party since the election of Barack Obama. The Mitt Romney on that stage was not angry at Barack Obama - just terribly, terribly disappointed."

Chuck Todd, et.al. at MSNBC's First Read: "Yesterday, we wrote that Mitt Romney had four objectives with his acceptance speech: 1) better introduce himself to the public, 2) close the empathy gap, 3) get American voters to be comfortable with him as president, and 4) put more meat on the policy bone. He accomplished those first two goals, especially if you were in the convention hall or watching the live feed in the 8:00 pm hour...But on the last two? Not as much. On getting American voters more comfortable with him as president, Romney made a stronger case -- and devoted more time -- to why Obama should be fired than why Romney should be hired...By not putting more meat on the policy bone and by not differentiating his policies from Bush’s, Romney left the Obama campaign a lot of room to work with."


**whew**

Right. a few days to Charlotte; we may want to take a bit of a breahter before the madness begins again.....

Let me tell you how the right will respond:

Bill Kristol is old media so he's out of touch.
Bob Wright of the Atlantic is East Coast Establishment. Can't be trusted.
Larison and Millman don't speak for the majority of the Republicans who are quite happy with their nominee; as they always are
Nate Silver is a homosexual so he can't be trusted.
Frum is new media so his opinions are that of a child
Todd is MSNBC so it's bullshit

I only saw clips of the speech but it looked like an undertaker delivering a eulogy and there seems to be a palpable apathy about the speech and the candidate .

What is this man's fascination with Poland? He mentioned it again during his speech.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I think Mitts Speech made me feel better about having him for 4 years than Obama's speech did about re-electing Obama for 4 more.