I watched a good part of John McCain's speech on CNN, and have also read the text. I think that, after the electrifying speech by Palin the other night -- a speech which was, in retrospect, quite unrestrained in its negativity towards Obama -- McCain's speech was much more in character for someone who wants to be President (and more in McCain's character).
However, Democrats will be reassured, after that speech, that McCain has very likely lost his last opportunity to really sprint past Obama. The speech was somewhat dull and uninspiring and rather full of recent Republican cliches -- too me-oriented, in an increasingly stale kind of way, for a candidate who claims to want to put his country first.
It was, moreover, revisionist and even "cunning" in its (and RNC's) attempt to pull a hero-as-leader rabbit out of his (McCain's) POW experience in Viet Nam so many years ago now. Isn't it a stretch to label (and to condone the labelling of) a POW, in a war that was in fact lost, as a national "hero"? If you did not know better, you would think that McCain had somehow levitated to the ranks of McArthur, Patton, Eisenhower, Westmoreland or even Powell -- or that he was allowing all and sundry to so elevate him!
P.S. Here is a video of McCain's acceptance speech.
And here are some reactions to the speech.
Here is another reaction.
And yet another reaction.
Here's a more recent one.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Sarah Palin
I watched Sarah Palin, McCain's choice for VP, live on CNN Wednesday night, as she addressed delegates at the RNC in St. Paul, Minnesota; I was determined to. I must say it was quite a performance. She exceeded all my expectations in terms of presence and delivery -- and even the "theatre" (as when she handed the baby over to her husband in order to continue waving to the audience after her speech).
To my mind, she was, in form and content, even more impressive than Hillary Clinton, who has herself won the support of all those 18 million. She is telegenic, has a good turn of phrase, looks very much the Governor that she is, and is so fresh on the scene that, between now and November, she will not cease to make positive waves for her party. That is, if embarassing dirt does not keep percolating to the political surface. She may even be a force in future elections, when America finally settles down to electing a woman for President. So, watch out Hillary -- competition's here.
I am saying all this because, until I had a good chance to size her up last night, I'd had the impression that McCain had been nothing but impulsive, and even desperate, in choosing her -- and, consequently, that he was in for great disappointment. He still might have been driven by little more than that -- impulsiveness and desperation -- as there is evidence to suggest that he did not have her vetted adequately, or, if he did, did not heed the vetters' counsel or take into full consideration the evidence presented by them.
There is a "formal procedure of good judgment" -- a method of scouring the evidence and a rule for making decisions which demands respect for the verdict(s) the evidence points to and which circumscribes choices -- which leaders are expected to adopt, explicitly or implicitly, if their leadership and judgement are to be deemed dependable and even sound. McCain does not seem to have followed any such procedure, hence the claim in some quarters that he simply "rolled the dice". Thus, he gambled but, it seems, hit the jackpot.
Still, Palin's good performance does highlight the power, much-overlooked, of speech in human affairs. She manifested that power Wednesdey. I dare say that if she could do it that suspenseful Wednesday night, she will certainly do so many times more in the days ahead -- as Obama does. We will see, Thursday night, what McCain does with his turn and opportunity.
Certainly, Palin was a far better choice that Meg Whitman, formerly of EBay, whose delivery that same night was dull and uninspiring, and who simplistically claimed (perhaps rattled by the millions of eyeballs glued on her face), inter alia, that "...governments don't create wealth, individuals do..." or that "McCain will not redistribute wealth..." [I asked myself, equating wealth broadly with 'assets' or 'capital': What about companies such as EBay, don't they create wealth? What about all the sovereign wealth funds around the world, what about all the "social overhead capital" which governments routinely build and must build (as argued even by conservative economists), and what about state corporations and kindred entities which governments, even in America, own in part or in whole (or which they, and they alone, make sustainable with preferential contracts, grants or legislation?]
Palin had her good share of Obama-bashing, as did ex-Mayor Rudi Giuliani. And she repeated McCain's claim that she is more experienced than Obama . However, I want to ask: if, as McCain claims, she is more experienced than Obama (than Obama and Biden combined -- some Republicans have interjected), is she (isn't she) then more qualified than McCain too, who has no executive experience at all -- and who clearly chose her in order to diminish the broad Obama-Biden appeal? And if she is more qualified and more of a Washington outsider than Obama, on the basis of what criteria should the voters prefer McCain to Obama?
McCain has been a Washington insider for some 30 years, during which he accumulated no executive experience, Obama for only four years or so. Obama is not running for VP, which Palin is. Like McCain, he is running for President. I think there is a confusion of labels or identities here which, because it is deliberate, is purely Machiavellian and, as politics, very typically Third World (or so we always thought!). Of course, at this point in the "red meat" argument, the pro-McCain camp tends to cite his heroism in the Viet Nam war -- and his contribution to the "surge." But being a former prisoner of war is no substitute for executive experience. More importantly, the US did not win the Viet Nam War, North Viet Nam did -- if I remember my history accurately. And Ho Chi Minh did not execute McCain, which says something about the man, he released him (yes, after holding him for over five years)! And so McCain lived to fight another day -- to fight other kinds of battle.
Will Palin put McCain over the top in the present political battle with one Obama? Will she be the force that ensures that the next US President will be John McCain? I seriously doubt it, for here is where you have to bring in the role of political parties and movements in choosing leaders in different kinds of democracies -- and, in particular, in countries such as USA and (for somewhat different reasons) India, Great Britain and Germany. Ruling parties do have runs at the top, after which a hidden logic of succession -- which has no specific time-frames, but which is driven by a collective memory of wrongs (or wrong turns) and missed opportunities -- kicks in to hand over the reins of power and government to those previously in opposition. All that we have heard and read and seen prior to this convention season suggests that the Republicans, maverick or not, will have a difficult task endeavouring to succeed themselves at the White House. The eight-year record of the Bush (Republican) administration wears heavy on their necks. This will become more and more evident as the Palin euphoria wears out, and as Fall advances toward Winter.
P.S.
1. For the text of Palin's speech, click to the following link: http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=1313384
2. For videos of Palin's speech, click here for Part 1 >> Video; here for Part 2 >> Part 2 of Video; here for Part 3 >> Part 3 of Video; here for Part 4 >> Part 4 of Video; and here for the final part, Part 5 >> Part 5 of Video.
To my mind, she was, in form and content, even more impressive than Hillary Clinton, who has herself won the support of all those 18 million. She is telegenic, has a good turn of phrase, looks very much the Governor that she is, and is so fresh on the scene that, between now and November, she will not cease to make positive waves for her party. That is, if embarassing dirt does not keep percolating to the political surface. She may even be a force in future elections, when America finally settles down to electing a woman for President. So, watch out Hillary -- competition's here.
I am saying all this because, until I had a good chance to size her up last night, I'd had the impression that McCain had been nothing but impulsive, and even desperate, in choosing her -- and, consequently, that he was in for great disappointment. He still might have been driven by little more than that -- impulsiveness and desperation -- as there is evidence to suggest that he did not have her vetted adequately, or, if he did, did not heed the vetters' counsel or take into full consideration the evidence presented by them.
There is a "formal procedure of good judgment" -- a method of scouring the evidence and a rule for making decisions which demands respect for the verdict(s) the evidence points to and which circumscribes choices -- which leaders are expected to adopt, explicitly or implicitly, if their leadership and judgement are to be deemed dependable and even sound. McCain does not seem to have followed any such procedure, hence the claim in some quarters that he simply "rolled the dice". Thus, he gambled but, it seems, hit the jackpot.
Still, Palin's good performance does highlight the power, much-overlooked, of speech in human affairs. She manifested that power Wednesdey. I dare say that if she could do it that suspenseful Wednesday night, she will certainly do so many times more in the days ahead -- as Obama does. We will see, Thursday night, what McCain does with his turn and opportunity.
Certainly, Palin was a far better choice that Meg Whitman, formerly of EBay, whose delivery that same night was dull and uninspiring, and who simplistically claimed (perhaps rattled by the millions of eyeballs glued on her face), inter alia, that "...governments don't create wealth, individuals do..." or that "McCain will not redistribute wealth..." [I asked myself, equating wealth broadly with 'assets' or 'capital': What about companies such as EBay, don't they create wealth? What about all the sovereign wealth funds around the world, what about all the "social overhead capital" which governments routinely build and must build (as argued even by conservative economists), and what about state corporations and kindred entities which governments, even in America, own in part or in whole (or which they, and they alone, make sustainable with preferential contracts, grants or legislation?]
Palin had her good share of Obama-bashing, as did ex-Mayor Rudi Giuliani. And she repeated McCain's claim that she is more experienced than Obama . However, I want to ask: if, as McCain claims, she is more experienced than Obama (than Obama and Biden combined -- some Republicans have interjected), is she (isn't she) then more qualified than McCain too, who has no executive experience at all -- and who clearly chose her in order to diminish the broad Obama-Biden appeal? And if she is more qualified and more of a Washington outsider than Obama, on the basis of what criteria should the voters prefer McCain to Obama?
McCain has been a Washington insider for some 30 years, during which he accumulated no executive experience, Obama for only four years or so. Obama is not running for VP, which Palin is. Like McCain, he is running for President. I think there is a confusion of labels or identities here which, because it is deliberate, is purely Machiavellian and, as politics, very typically Third World (or so we always thought!). Of course, at this point in the "red meat" argument, the pro-McCain camp tends to cite his heroism in the Viet Nam war -- and his contribution to the "surge." But being a former prisoner of war is no substitute for executive experience. More importantly, the US did not win the Viet Nam War, North Viet Nam did -- if I remember my history accurately. And Ho Chi Minh did not execute McCain, which says something about the man, he released him (yes, after holding him for over five years)! And so McCain lived to fight another day -- to fight other kinds of battle.
Will Palin put McCain over the top in the present political battle with one Obama? Will she be the force that ensures that the next US President will be John McCain? I seriously doubt it, for here is where you have to bring in the role of political parties and movements in choosing leaders in different kinds of democracies -- and, in particular, in countries such as USA and (for somewhat different reasons) India, Great Britain and Germany. Ruling parties do have runs at the top, after which a hidden logic of succession -- which has no specific time-frames, but which is driven by a collective memory of wrongs (or wrong turns) and missed opportunities -- kicks in to hand over the reins of power and government to those previously in opposition. All that we have heard and read and seen prior to this convention season suggests that the Republicans, maverick or not, will have a difficult task endeavouring to succeed themselves at the White House. The eight-year record of the Bush (Republican) administration wears heavy on their necks. This will become more and more evident as the Palin euphoria wears out, and as Fall advances toward Winter.
P.S.
1. For the text of Palin's speech, click to the following link: http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&threadid=1313384
2. For videos of Palin's speech, click here for Part 1 >> Video; here for Part 2 >> Part 2 of Video; here for Part 3 >> Part 3 of Video; here for Part 4 >> Part 4 of Video; and here for the final part, Part 5 >> Part 5 of Video.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)