The good, the bad, and the ugly of the Republican Convention

The good, the bad, and the ugly

I watched some parts of the big speeches at this year’s Republican Convention in Tampa and was struck by a number of things running the gamut from good to bad to ugly.

I think Mrs. Romney did a good job on her speech. She came across as likable and someone I can imagine as a first lady. She also helped flesh out the picture of her husband as a person.

I also thought that Marco Rubio did a good job even though I disagree with most of what he said. He seemed nervous, which is understandable, but I think he came off well to the audience most important for him and that is very conservative people setting himself up for a 2016 run at the oval office. He seemed a tad angry at times though, which is a turnoff.

Also angry was Chris Christie, but to a higher level than Rubio. I think Christie gave a bad speech. He came across as a very negative man with an inflated ego. I think he too is already looking to 2016.

The video about Romney was excellent. It was quirky, funny, and served to humanize Romney.

Romney himself did just OK I thought on his speech. To me as a Democrat, I thought he said many things that were great stretches of the truth about Obama. Romney also was short on details about his own plans. However, overall I thought this was far better than previous speeches so I think he accomplished something.

One of my kids did say though “his smile could make children cry” so Romney’s forced smile is still an issue. It was interesting that we did not hear much of that strange, unsettling laugh of his about which I’ve posted previously so that was nice. I also thought it very odd that Romney told a religious joke in his speech, which seems highly risky. However, in whole I think the speech helped more than it hurt.

Paul Ryan did poorly on his own speech in my opinion. I know conservatives probably loved his speech, but he seemed angry and there was so much in his speech that is simply untrue as determined by non-partisan fact checkers that I found his speech hard to stomach.

Then there was the ugly.

Clint Eastwood, movie star, pseudo-Republican, and octogenarian. I loved Clint in the movies when I was a kid.

Last night I thought his performance was very entertaining, but not for the right reasons…. so sad for someone so formerly cool. People told me that they were laughing at Clint, not with him. He seemed disoriented, weak, and mean-spirited. The empty chair he was talking to was meant, I believe, to be a symbol for a lack of substance in President Obama, but that failed. Instead the empty chair came to represent a problem for the Republicans.

I’m curious about the Democratic Convention.

3 thoughts on “The good, the bad, and the ugly of the Republican Convention”

  1. The empty chair might as well symbolize the future of the Republican party – go to any university and see what young Republicans believe. Overwhelmingly they are Libertarians. They are voting for Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, or just planning to leave the US altogether. They have gay friends, and don’t feel any animosity toward them – in fact they want to legalize gay marriage. They want to end the pointless wars and bring the troops home (something Obama and the Democrats won’t even do). They want to deregulate the economy and return to a gold standard. The old Republican party is dying, and fast.

  2. The voter suppression efforts by the GOP ought to be enough to alienate even their staunch supporters. There is almost no evidence of voter fraud at any significant level, but somehow magically six different states with GOP-controlled legislatures felt an urgent need to pass restrictive laws that would make it more difficult for minorities and the poor to vote. Republicans are freaked out about the fact that white people will not be in the majority in this country much longer, so instead of crafting their policies to appeal to a broader base, they have chosen instead to enact abusive voting laws. Do they actually think we don’t notice this stuff?

  3. This morning I woke up realizing that Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan for VP doesn’t pull in any new voters. It won’t tempt Democrats to cross the line, and the choice is not playing well with independents. So it’s all about shoring up the base, which is a pretty desperate strategy. If you have to nominate a right wing economic jihadist to convince your own constituency that your GOP theology credentials are legit, then you’re not in a position of strength. A VP choice should broaden the appeal of your ticket, and not be used just to rally those who are already in the choir.

    I grew up in a Republican household in the Eisenhower years, and would give anything to have him back. The WalMart Republicans representing the GOP today are an embarrassment to what once was a decent political party. I’m disappointed in Obama, but will vote for him just to deny Romney the chance to make any SCOTUS appointments.

Comments are closed.