Convention Blogging: McCain's Speech

So, at the start, Pericles strides forward; and why? To endorse Nicias, of course. (You on the right: you think Nicias a misnomer, a slur. See Iraq and the Peace of Nicias that is being wrought there -- yes, even now.)

History repeats itself, despite its lessons.

It's a good speech, but, at the beginning, the delivery is a bit off-kilter. McCain's uncertain, not quite ready for the moment. And, then, ....

(A personal reaction to McCain's speech follows -- viewed from FoxNews.)

"Disingenuous film-maker" -- endless rote cheers of "four more years" from the crowd. A shot of Moore laughing. Rightfully so. In their eagerness, the Republicans in the hall are defeating the moment. They rush forward into a phantom gap. McCain recovers, and saves the troops from their dash into disaster: "That line was so good, I'll use it again."

The crowd silences itself, self-aware for the moment. It's a moment that seems to strengthen McCain. If you watch enough arguments (and this is one), you know that there's a moment when you catch your wind. It's usually a moment of adversity, when you forget an exhibit, or the unanticipated question comes. It seldom happens when expected. Well, for McCain, mistaken crowing by the crowd on a throw-away line provides it. He uses their error. With a laugh, he redirects their energy. From here on out, the speech gathers power, opens, and pours forth.

A defense of the Iraq war comes next; it's effective, to my biased ears: "He [Saddam] would have acquired [WMDs] again. ... We cannot afford the risk of an unrestrained Saddam. ... The mission was necessary, achievable, and noble." Huh. A pause: Yes, yes, and yes. But the failure to achieve the achievable, of course, is the central problem with Bush. Good with the "vision thing," not so good with the "execution thing"; that's the rap. Rather than stress a strength, this part of the speech inadvertently reiterates a weakness.

There's yet time to recover (again).

"Still closer to the beginning than the end of this fight .... We need a leader ... [who's committed] to moving forward. It is easier to rest ...." Yes; well said. The ground is steadying again.

"He will not yield and neither will we." Only Lieberman (D-CT) put forward the same conviction among the Democrats. It's why I supported him. Unfortunately, I am not convinced that it is a conviction shared by Bush -- shared, that is, other than in mere words and Orwellian backdrops.

But, quickly, the round up to crescendo begins: The troops "are the very best of us." The applause is thunderous and worthy -- thunderous and worthwhile. But, basking in glory, the questions come again. Why, pray tell, do we demean the service of John Kerry? And, in demeaning it, demean the service of everyone who served? I'll tell you, in their own words: That (says the law professor, who never was in harm's way) was a scrach. That (said the bicyclist who sang in a bad rock band) is a traitor who turned tail. That (says the partisan who cannot, despite all opportunity for preparation, get his story straight) is a man unfit for command.

What myopia. What pride. What foolishness. Disagree with the man on principle, but do not slander service freely given (and freely given it indisputably was.)

There's yet time. A good end is coming.

"It should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause[.]" A lesson to Democrats as well as Republicans, but neither will hear it properly.* There is good among us, and in us. There is a center. It will hold.

"We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."

Yes. Yes. The cheers come, and they are deserved.

******

Analysis: It started slow, but concluded with power. This is the Republican party that I'd proudly stand up for. Pity that Bush isn't (yet?) a part of it.

von

*Indymedia and Little Green Footballs, in their petty, silly slanders among themselves and others, are equally the enemy of good cause. Neither represents America, as it is or should be; do not let them deceive you otherwise. (Why do the mainstream bloggers not oppose them? It's past midnight, friends. Time to see who's up. And, for the record, opposing just one of two evils ain't the same as standing up for good.)

Comments

[rilkefan]

von, did McCain really say that the opponents of the Iraq war were like the appeasers of Hitler?

[Gromit]

Yeah, I think jab at Moore completely backfired. He got camera time in the middle of the most-anticipated speech on the opening night of the Republican National Convention, not to mention an overwhelming reaction from the crowd (negative, yes, but this definitely falls into the "no such thing as bad publicity" category). I don't think he could have asked for more.

And while I thought it was a decent speech, I was pretty disappointed at the tepid call for civility. I wasn't expecting a fiery rebuke of the SwiftVets (well, one can always dream), but I had hoped for a stronger statement about character assassination. Or any statement about character assassination, for that matter.

[JadeGold.]

'Tepid' was a good way to describe McCain's speech. I'm halfway thinking McCain was hedging his bets against Bush being elected because it's pretty clear he is capable of putting forth a better effort.

Agree with Gromit's comments WRT Moore; big mistake, demonstrates the fear Moore has caused within GOP circles. I'd add that McCain calling Moore "disingenuous" is a pretty weak condemnation.

[CJM]

The conflation of Iraq and al Qaeda - in McCain's speech and especially in Giuliani's - rendered them both empty and hollow. This was not an intellectual defense of the war. This was not a thinking defense of the war. This was a purely emotional defense, divorced from fact. We were hit so we had to have the strength to hit back anywhere - whether we were hitting our attackers or not.

Bull. I don't believe that McCain or Giuliani are so dunderheaded as Bush, who might be so unengaged with fact that he simply doesn't care what connections constitute a meaningful relationship with al Qaeda. I don't believe that McCain or Giuliani are so ignorant or uncaring that they failed to pay attention when David Kay said that over fifty other countries currently stand at Iraq's level of weapons development. They were trotted out to offer up a disingenuous, laughably false defense of this war, as a dozen other Bush surrogates have before them. This was cheap work, and the American troops and Iraqi civilians who've died in the name of their excuses deserve better.