RNC speeches

[teaberryblue]

So, I didn't get Mitt Romney's speech at all. Especially when he says things like "We need Big Ideas, not Big Brother."

Which I know what he meant by it, but when the Bush administration has been accused of spying on people and killing our rights as much as they have, it doesn't get across the message I think he was intending to make.

Another thing that weirded me out about Romney's speech-- he talks about how the Democratic party wants to take our rights away and then two minutes later is talking about keeping pornography out of homes. I generally think that on that count, the Republican party is much more interested in stepping in and regulating freedoms than the Democratic party is-- the only one that the Democratic party really cares about is gun control. And I realize that that is really super important to a lot of people, but no one is trying to take away hunting rifles.

Huckabee, on the other hand, man. I wish he didn't have so many crazy Fundamentalist leanings, because man, he's brilliant. And he's such a great speaker. I didn't agree with everything in his speech, but when he's not talking about his religion, he's fabulous to listen to and so smart.

Rudy is being Rudy-- I think he's too vitriolic to be going right before Sarah Palin...they should have had him go early to warm up the crowd, I think. I love Rudy and I kind of wanted him to get the nomination, and then have Bloomberg run independently...just because the Black, Jew, and Italian running for President jokes would have been awesome.

Except for this Islamic terrorism thing? Umm, who are they insulting? How about Muslims? And we're not mentioning September 11th because that was seven years ago and we need to move on. Jesus, Rudy, I know it was your time in the sun, but please get the hell over it.

Okay, now he just got nasty. Rudy, stop making New Yorkers look bad. This is exactly what the rest of the country already thinks we're like. I want to listen to Huckabee again.

Okay, Sarah Palin. I think this will be interesting because it's really our first time hearing her, even if the speech was written before she was selected.

I remember when Bill Clinton first started running for President and I kept wanting to slap his hand down. It would drive me nuts watching him because he kept making hand motions while speaking. Sarah Palin needs to learn not to roll her lips while she's on national TV; that surprises me because of her TV experience.

This speech so far seems perfectly decent but kind of bland?

Ooh, actually, she has a nephew on a carrier in the Gulf-- one of my cousins is doing that now; I want to find out which one he's on.

Also her youngest daughter is adorable.

This whole speech is a little weird, because it feels more like a biography/introduction than a real speech? I know this is the first time many people have heard her, but I feel like I would rather they'd gotten Rudy to coach her. She's not even delivering her vitriolic lines with vitriol, which makes her just sound like a lecturey professor.

And she really, really doesn't want to attack the media in her first major speech on the national scale? Is this to throw people off when the media criticizes her so she can be all "well, the media's criticizing me because I won't pander to them?" Because I am honestly starting to believe this is a strategic thing.

Okay, eBay joke? Funny. Actually, that whole section was funny and as a big fan of Mike Bloomberg, I appreciate people in positions of privilege who refuse luxuries they don't need.

Why is she still misrepresenting her fiscal history, though? She shouldn't be talking about that when she's been called out on it as many times as she has.

The energy talk is a good move, though. This is obviously where her expertise is, although I'm not sure I feel comfortable with it coming from someone who is known for earmarks to her own town-- is she just going to be giving more money back to her home state at the expense of other states? She went from highlighting everything well to turning this back into Alaskan interests.

I like all the talk about things being produced by American workers when she wants to pay Canada for that.

Okay, and she just likened Obama to...Moses? And it's weird that she's not using his name.

I haven't had any more comments since then because I think I'm going back to my earlier statement that it's not a BAD speech, but it's not a super impressive one and I feel that it's kind of canned. She's repeating things that previous speakers already said or things we've heard from McCain himself before and I'm a little disappointed because I was hoping we'd get more of a sense of her own individual identity from this.

I think if I were rating that speech like a movie? I would rate it about a 2, maybe 2 1/2 stars-- not offensively bad, but nothing new and kind of bland. The half is because it's her first one. In relation, I think I'd give Romney and Giuliani both 1 1/2-- Romney was just really off, and Giuliani is a good speaker but it was not a likable speech and poorly positioned. Huckabee wins with definitely a 4-star speech and the best of the night.

Comments

[teaberryblue.livejournal.com]

Attacking and describing something from the general perspective of people here aren't the same thing? I used those words deliberately to get across an accurate depiction of a New Yorker's perspective.

This is my journal, and I'm going to use the kind of words I like to use. If you don't like the way New Yorkers address people or problems, then don't complain about how you don't like the way New Yorkers handle things in a New Yorkers' journal. Because I'm going to address things like a New Yorker.

[siadea.livejournal.com]

Ideally, they're really not. It's the difference between "okay, this is how we do it here; I know y'all do it differently there" and "the way you do it is wrong." The one is not necessarily the other, though the two are commonly linked. I like to think I didn't link them in my previous comments; I may have inadvertently. In fact, upon rereading, I think I did, for which I apologize. It wasn't my intent.

As I don't believe you're wildly interested in apologizing in turn, though, we should probably let this go at that.

[teaberryblue.livejournal.com]

I might have apologized if you weren't intentionally being passive-aggressive now? What was the point of saying that?

[siadea.livejournal.com]

I didn't think you were, since instead of doing so, you said you were perfectly justified to do so. New Yorker talking like a New Yorker, after all. The point of saying that was the (apparently feeble) offer to now stop talking on this thread.

[teaberryblue.livejournal.com]

If you really meant the apology, you wouldn't have been making accusations or trying to get the last word in. If you really want to apologize and stop talking, the appropriate way to do that is pretty obvious-- apologize, and stop talking.

Frankly, I don't think you said anything that's really worth an apology over, either, and I wasn't expecting one. It's not really that big a deal. I was just surprised by your response-- I can understand someone taking offense at 'dishonest,' although it was the best word to describe what I was talking about, but it never occurred to me in a million years that anyone would think 'nicey-nice' is a word to get offended over. I'm not upset with you or even really mildly annoyed-- I'm just surprised, but it also explains why you're not comfortable living here a lot better than I understood it before. I wasn't even aware that Oklahomans considered themselves Southern, since it wasn't even opened to non-Native settlement until almost twenty years after the Civil War. I honestly figured you more for Texans, who are a lot more like us than most Southerners.

[siadea.livejournal.com]

I did and I do apologize for inadvertently knocking the North when I was only trying to describe the South, but that doesn't mean I didn't find your comments to be provocative in turn. Hence a sincere apology combined with 'trying to get the last word.' You seem to have skipped the apologizing part entirely and gone straight into trying to get the last word, rather than accepting the apology and leaving it be, which is what I would have considered appropriate.

I think at this point I am simply going to try and convince myself that we're having a miscommunication over what would be considered offensive. For instance, I cannot imagine in a million years using 'pretend nicey-nice' in any way other than derogatorily.

...yeah, no, Oklahoma is most definitely Southern. I don't know quite why you'd think it wasn't; it's mostly the Southeastern states that focus so very much on the Civil War. Then again, that might be why in and of itself, as y'all're in much closer proximity to the Southeast! I myself draw the definition more along the lines of current culture and language patterns; I find it to be more accurate.

[teaberryblue.livejournal.com]

Yes, I skipped the apology because everyone over the age of six knows that an apology isn't sincere if the person apologizing deliberately insults you immediately after apologizing. It wasn't appropriate for you to make that comment at all, and pretending it was is just silly. You just don't say shit like that to people. I'm not accepting that that's miscommunication, because no one does that, and that's not a cultural thing. That's not normal or nice and you're old enough to know better.

[siadea.livejournal.com]

Deliberately insult you? By saying that you weren't intending to apologize, which you say you "might have" [emphasis mine] if I hadn't said you likely wouldn't? That's not quite as blatant an insult as saying someone is being "passive-aggressive" and should be "old enough to know better." You corrected my apology; I corrected your acceptance of my apology. The one's as fair game as the other, so you may as well dismount your high horse and have done with it. Lord knows I'm finished here.

[teaberryblue.livejournal.com]

I love how you're still being passive-aggressive.