A Real Missed Opportunity for the GOP
The more I think about it, the more I really think the McCain campaign missed a golden opportunity last night. Sarah Palin is clearly an effective speaker and she was in her element last night. But she used the opportunity to delivere a very snide, very partisan speech that was clearly intended to fire up the GOP base. And while the base ate it up, I have a feeling that it may have struck a lot of people as, dare I say, presumptuous. As Nate Silver put it:
Moreover, it all seemed a bit unnecessary. The GOP base already loves Palin. They think she's one of them. She didn't need to win them over last night. Nor did the McCain campaign need her to play the traditional role of attack dog, especially in her introductory performance. Rudy Giuliani had already delivered a blisteringly negative assault on Obama moments earlier.
So imagine if Palin had given a different speech. Imagine if she had used her obvious rhetorical abilities to give a more humble and uplifting speech, one that disarmed her critics (instead of provoking them) and attempted to reach across the ideological divide. What if she had used her motherly image to project a more compassionate and empathetic vision of the Republican party, one that might actually appeal to swing voters. Had she done that, the GOP base would still have gushed with praise for her, but she might also have earned some allies in the media and caused independents and swing voters to take a second look at the GOP. Remember, this is the first time that most people have seen her.
Imagine, for instance, if she had given a speech similar in tone to Barack Obama's 2004 convention speech, a speech about bridging the divisions that separate us and moving beyond partisanship to actually get things done. I have a feeling that kind of a speech would have gone over well with everyone. The GOP base was already satiated from the red meat of prior speeches and would have clapped along enthusiastically to anything she said.
Palin's speech last night might prove to be effective anyway. Certainly mockery and derision have worked for the GOP in the past. But I'm virtually certain that a different kind of speech would have worked much better in this instance.
I think some of you are underestimating the percentage of voters for whom Sarah Palin lacks the standing to make this critique of Barack Obama. To many voters, she is either entirely unknown, or is known as an US Weekly caricature of a woman who eats mooseburgers and has a pregnant daughter. To change someone's opinion, you have to do one of two things. Either, you have to be a trusted voice of authority, or you have to persuade them. Palin is not a trusted voice of authority -- she's much too new. But neither was this a persuasive speech. It was staccato, insistent, a little corny. It preached to the proverbial choir.And if this small focus group is any indication, many independents voters may have found the stridency of her speech off-putting.
Moreover, it all seemed a bit unnecessary. The GOP base already loves Palin. They think she's one of them. She didn't need to win them over last night. Nor did the McCain campaign need her to play the traditional role of attack dog, especially in her introductory performance. Rudy Giuliani had already delivered a blisteringly negative assault on Obama moments earlier.
So imagine if Palin had given a different speech. Imagine if she had used her obvious rhetorical abilities to give a more humble and uplifting speech, one that disarmed her critics (instead of provoking them) and attempted to reach across the ideological divide. What if she had used her motherly image to project a more compassionate and empathetic vision of the Republican party, one that might actually appeal to swing voters. Had she done that, the GOP base would still have gushed with praise for her, but she might also have earned some allies in the media and caused independents and swing voters to take a second look at the GOP. Remember, this is the first time that most people have seen her.
Imagine, for instance, if she had given a speech similar in tone to Barack Obama's 2004 convention speech, a speech about bridging the divisions that separate us and moving beyond partisanship to actually get things done. I have a feeling that kind of a speech would have gone over well with everyone. The GOP base was already satiated from the red meat of prior speeches and would have clapped along enthusiastically to anything she said.
Palin's speech last night might prove to be effective anyway. Certainly mockery and derision have worked for the GOP in the past. But I'm virtually certain that a different kind of speech would have worked much better in this instance.
posted by A.L. at 11:23 AM
24 Comments:
Regarding last nights sppech: Was anyone else able to see the puppeteer strings?
I think they are re-using the same ones from the last 8 years.
No offense, but did you miss the part about her saying that a McCain administration would champion the cause of parents of special needs children? None of your posts on this speech mentions that.
We aren't trying to elect someone for Mother of the United States. We are going to vote for a President and a Vice President.
You all can elect the nanny.
The response from the Obama campaign was weak. What a bunch of wimps, afraid to hit back.
"The meanie Republicans are picking on me! HELP!"
And one other thing, a.l., for someone who has been singing the praises of the liberal media for supposedly doing their jobs and not smearing Palin, you just did it yourself. US Weekly is putting out a disgusting cover story of much of the garbage on Palin spun by the leftists this week. The title is "Sarah Palin: Babies, Lies & Scandal". The more appropriate picture for that title would have been one with John Edwards. And the idea of using a "motherly image". Puh-lease. Have you ever thought that either Obama and Biden should use a "fatherly image"? No? I thought not.
As I mentioned, we aren't voting for a "daddy" and a "mommy", or even a "nanny"; we are voting for a President and a Vice President.
Yeah, Steve, I'm really smearing her by mentioning her "motherly image." I don't supposed you noticed that she has referred to herself as a "hockey mom" in virtually every breath and spent the first half of her speech last night talking about her kids.
That's a just fact. She's emphasizing her status as mom in order to attract voters. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not sexist to point out that that's the image she's trying (very hard) to convey.
AL was make a strategic point--not a moral one. And are you claiming that the self-described "hockey mom" doesn't want to be seen as motherly?
Doh! AL wins.
I think A.L. is right. If she had given an inclusive, generous, uniting (i.e. Obama-esque) speech we might be in serious trouble. That would have been precisely the thing to do to appeal to Independents. But these are Republicans so they must obfuscate, divide, sneer, mislead, vilify, and caricature. Independents will turn up their noses at that and go with those who offer hope, truth, and real solutions.
But hey, let's not give the bad guys any more good ideas, okay?
AL, we'll know a little more tomorrow when the first full day (post-Palin) of polling comes out in the tracking polls. I saw two focus groups--one in Michigan and one in Nevada. The independents in Michigan really disliked the speech. The one in Nevada--composed entirely of women--also generally disliked it. I think in general independents view these types of speeches as just partisan posturing instead of addressing the real issues. Biden's response today was basically this was a political speech without much substance--right in line with what the independents in the focus groups were saying.
No sir, it was a smear. First, that "motherly image" you presented wasn't at all the image she was putting on display for herself, or the kind of mother she is (which by all accounts, she's a good mom). Every single successful mother does things differently, and not always like the stereotype you presented. She emphasized the type of mom she is because she was explaining what kind of mom she is, nothing more. It's that simple. Second, she isn't running for the office of "Mother of the United States", because that office doesn't exist.
And I'm not even going to go into why she spent so much time talking about her kids and her family. If you don't know why by now, I can't help you.
BTW, thirty seven MILLION people watched her last night, nearly as many as The One last Friday.
Hows that feel, libs?
BTW, thirty seven MILLION people watched her last night, nearly as many as The One last Friday.
Hows that feel, libs?
Umm. People tuned in because they were curious. It was her first major appearance. People stop to watch car wrecks, too.
The question is what those 37 million people thought. The verdict on that won't be in for at least a day or two.
And VC, aren't you the slightest bit self-conscious about the way you and your fellow conservatives are reacting to her? I've seen the phrase "rock star" at least a dozen times this morning. Are you going to keep mocking Obama as a "celebrity" and The One while simultaneously swooning over an unknown and unexperienced Republican because she gave a good speech?
The best characterization yet of the Palin speech came from Jane Smiley:
"Last night, Sarah Palin got her once in a lifetime moment, the moment where she introduced herself to the nation at large. She had a choice about how to reveal herself. We all know she could easily become president, so we were looking to see what kind of person she is, and we saw it. She's mean and shallow and aggressive. She thinks being a leader is about tearing down your rivals. She lies about her own actions and she demeans the more generous actions of others. She goes for the easy laugh, but doesn't even make up her own jokes. If there's a low road, she will take it. If she can pander, she will do it. Her performance recapitulated her actions as mayor and governor in Alaska -- holding office, for her, is about keeping as much power as possible and using it for her own selfish ends. This woman is small small small. She demonstrated that with every word she spoke."
AL.One thing I don't understand - Why are you giving advice to the other side? Don't they get enough from Rove, MSM and all their pundits? They do read the liberal blogs, and take everything they can use, obviously.
The liberal left is clearly in panic.
No, I don't care if she is called a rock star. Because unlike Obama shes one of us, from the heartland. Not some arrogant intellectual from Harvard.
We're gonna get a huge bump next week from the 37 million, even the elite MSM is eating crow now and admitting that.
lib_mom,
If they take A.L.'s advice, and try to run an inclusive campaign, their right wing will bolt. If they don't, they lose everyone with 30 percent of a brain, i. e., anyone less dead from the neck up than Virginia and Steveil.
They can't run on the issues, because they're on the opposite side of every issue from the majority of the electorate. All they have is "character" -- and they blew that with their over-the-top introduction of Governor Palin as the evil twin (twice removed) of Katherine Hepburn.
I don't know where they go from here, but my guess is it ain't up. Factor in tonight's narcolepsy-inducing speech by the supposed leader of their ticket, and I don't think it looks good. For them -- for the country, things are looking better.
A.L., I think I may be the target audience not only for the Palin speech but for the Giuliani and Romney speeches as well. (I didn't watch the Huckabee speech--that guy just creeps me out.) So I'll beg to differ with you.
Most of my first impulses are conservative--I have to work pretty hard to moderate my opinions. But, given the utter lack of any sort of coherent philosophy on the part of McCain & Co., I'm about 60% convinced that I'll vote for Obama in November. I'm also not uncomfortable with the "liberal elite"--I'm a suburban professional with a decent education, so I identify more with Obama's core demographics than I do with those of the alleged heartland.
And yet the Obama campaign leaves me in a perpetual state of low-level annoyance. They're so smug, so condescending, and so rigid in their outlook--despite all the post-partisan pabulum with which they obscure every position--that I accept even their good positions with the utmost reluctance. Face it: the Obama campaign is filled with snobs, and Obama is the Snob In Chief.
So, when I heard Romney make a cogent (stilted, but cogent) case for small government conservatism, followed by Giuliani making the same case in addition to a cogent set of negative attacks, and then I heard both of them followed up by Palin being obviously bright and engaging and--again, face it--fun, I felt better about McCain and the GOP than I had in months. Via Palin, the GOP managed to clear away an awful lot of crap in a single night.
NB: I am under no illusions that there was even an ounce of substance on issues. But there was a marked absence of substance in Obama's speech as well. (Anybody who's going to come out with an agenda that's $100-150 billion in new spending is clearly not intending to be taken literally, are they?) Meanwhile, the GOP has me engaged again. Maybe not convinced, but listening. That's a pretty good night's work.
And VC, aren't you the slightest bit self-conscious about the way you and your fellow conservatives are reacting to her? I've seen the phrase "rock star" at least a dozen times this morning.
While I won't speak for VC, I can say I'm NOT getting a thrill up my leg, unlike some liberals in the media.
Are you going to keep mocking Obama as a "celebrity" and The One...
Absolutely. I'm still waiting for him to begin slowing the rise of the oceans and healing the planet. I still laugh remembering when John Edwards said he and Kerry were going to make the lame walk.
A.L.,
I think your scary comment crashed their server. The entire redstate site is - at the moment - 404.
Probably a Liberal Plot, right vc?
RM,
Are you kidding about the Romney speech? I think even David Brooks described that one as "borderline insane." Romney, an ivy-league educated, insanely rich Boston investment banker who was the son of a Governor, was railing against the "coastal elites." He then accused Democrats of being the party of "Big Brother." And then he took a swipe at Al Gore for flying around in his private jet (which he has never had).
If you found that speech anything other than spectacularly phony, then I don't even know what to say.
vs said: "We're gonna get a huge bump next week from the 37 million.."
And if that means that Palin is popular, then the obverse must be true: if the numbers go *down* then it means Palin is UNpopular. Right?
Or does it mean that the Liberal Media is controlling public opinion and, when the (your) numbers go up it's in spite of them and when the go down it's because of them?
I would love to turn this into a deal: the numbers go up and we say "ok, guess she did pretty well" and if the numbers go down YOU say "guess she didn't do that well after all". That's not so scary is it?
But I know you'll pull the usual crap and blame everything on the Liberal Media (c) and the Hateful Left (c).
Please, prove me wrong.
Luke-
If we don't get a bump from this convention we're fucked. Good enough for you?
Of course the liberal media helps in that, but its more accurate to blame the loss of an election on biased media than Karl Rove secretly hacking satanic Diebold machines like you will probably say if Obama loses.
RadMod,
Like you, I have respect for markets and am skeptical of big government but I was kind of surprised to hear that you were influenced by the lip service that Romney and Giuliani paid to these ideas during their convention speeches. Haven't you noticed that Republicans have been preaching along these lines for decades but never actually act to reduce the size of government when in power?
For instance Repulicans pretty much controlled both houses of congress from the time Bush took office until the new congress took over in 2007. During that period federal spending rose from approximately $2 trillion at the end of the Clinton administration to over $3 trillion for fiscal year 2007. And you are concerned that Obama is going to introduce an additional $100 billion to $150 billion in new spending?
vc,
Sigh, I was secretly hoping for a dialog, I don't know why, a bad habit of mine. I do indeed hope you lose in November, but "we're fucked" is not what I wish for - if you understand the difference that'd be something, at least.
BTW, the voting machine thing is a issue, but I doubt you're interested in any information, just want to mock about "Satanic" plots. Note that to the "Liberal Media" this is a non-story which drives us real liberals crazy! I think it's a fascinating topic though.
Anyway, I stopped by this thread for an update for you:
------------------------
From NBC's Mark Murray
The Obama campaign confirms to First Read that it has raised $8 million from more than 130,000 donors since Sarah Palin's speech last night -- and that it's on pace to raise a total of $10 million by the time McCain speaks.
"Sarah Palin's attacks have rallied our supporters in ways we never expected," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "And we fully expect John McCain's attacks tonight to help us make our grassroots organization even stronger."
*** UPDATE *** The Wall Street Journal, meanwhile, is reporting that the RNC raised $1 million after Palin's speech
--------------------
So truly it's early to say, but it implies that Palin did indeed produce a bounce - for Obama.
Here's hoping for a respectful dialog some day.
Luke
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home