Reviews of McCain's speech
Posted: Friday, September 05, 2008 9:30 AM by Mark Murray
The AP’s Ron Fournier says McCain “preached bipartisanship and unity from a stage retooled to carry him out to the Republican faithful. He didn't have to be biting: On the previous night, his attack dogs had paved the way. For every McCain call for consensus Thursday night, there had been a missile aimed at Barack Obama on Wednesday night. For every call to fight as Americans for America, there had been a party comrade calling on the faithful to fight as Republicans for conservatism. For every insistence that he was not working for any one party, McCain's allies had already done his dirty work. This conflict between smiles and swordsmanship undercuts his campfire-song message of a unified nation working together for change.”
The Washington Post’s Tom Shales wasn’t too impressed with the speech. “Apparently the leadership of the Republican Party thinks voters are turned off by specifics, and so Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech as its presidential nominee last night was a hodgepodge of generalities, musings on courage, reminiscence about his years as a POW in Vietnam, and rabble-rousing calls for change… He used the word ‘change’ at least 10 times in his bombastic speech -- the convention's emotional climax -- but since the Republicans have controlled the White House for the past eight years, what does McCain want to change from? And to? It really is an audacious ploy, to tell people that the country's got to correct the mistakes made by a political party when that's the very party you represent.”
The New York Times makes a similar point. “After watching two political conclaves the last two weeks, it would be easy to be confused about which was really the gathering of the opposition. As Senator John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he and his supporters sounded the call of insurgents seeking to topple the establishment, even though their party heads the establishment… But as a matter of history, it is easier to run as the opposition party if you actually are the opposition party.”
Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson on MSNBC last night: “The policy in the speech was rather typical for a Republican. Pretty disappointing. It didn't do a lot of outreach to moderates and independents on issues that they care about. It talked, about issues like drilling and school choice which was really speaking to the converted. I think that was a missed opportunity. Many Americans needed to hear from this speech something they have never heard from Republicans before. And in reality, a lot of the policy they’ve heard from Republicans before.”
The Boston Globe's Canellos: "Though campaign aides had promised to create the feel of a town-hall meeting, the speech was traditional and often fell short of eloquence. The crowd, perhaps expecting a partisan call to arms like the one delivered by vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, seemed more excited to shout down an antiwar heckler than to second McCain's calls for change. But the speech made clear that the choice of Palin, which delighted the party's conservative base, may have simply bought McCain the space to be himself."
USA Today’s Page writes, “The speech Wednesday by his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, energized Republicans in the convention hall with us-versus-them appeals to middle America and jabs at Democrat Barack Obama as a naif and a pretender. What McCain needed to do in his speech was more difficult: Convince independent-minded voters watching on television that he is a maverick, tied not to the unpopular President Bush but to his own legacy as someone who is willing to shake things up.”
The paper also observes that “it's almost as if the two contenders are running in different races. Democrats calculate that the presidential election will turn on bread-and-butter issues. To judge by their speeches at the convention, Republicans are convinced it will be defined by questions of character and trust.”
