Conventions are about atmosphere, images and making friends. And by making friends, I’m not talking about the aggressive networking that goes on behind the scenes at these events. I’m talking about Americans making friends with their potential leaders.
During the three days of the Republican convention, Americans were presented with people they can fully imagine leading them and be proud and happy that they are in charge.
While her outreach to women was a bust, Ann Romney presented herself as an attractive and compassionate potential first lady who will be a rock the man she clearly loves can lean on, always, as he tackles the most difficult job on the planet.
Paul Ryan showed himself a young man with maturity exceeding his youth who has strong convictions and personal integrity that would lend honor to an office currently being defiled.
And Mitt Romney, whose competence has always been beyond question, finally made us like him, and stirred conservatives to his cause.
I wrote recently that Romney had to let his perfect hair down, to make a connection to Americans who need a connection to their leader, to reveal himself as a real person.
Last night, that’s exactly what he did.
What was remarkable about the speech was not anything he said, although there were some compelling lines. The stunning thing about it was Romney himself, who seemed natural, determined and yes, very likable.
He talked about himself, his family and his religion in a way that made you want to like him. He seemed presidential, but also easygoing. And, contradicting the image the Obama campaign has built for him as a nasty corporate raider who enjoys throwing people out of their jobs and boosting employment overseas, you could tell how deeply Romney cares about this country and its people.
The best line, I thought, was this:
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans. And to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family.
I liked it not because of the humorous allusion to President Obama’s God-like perception of himself. I liked it because when Romney said he wanted to help Americans, I believed it.
I guarantee you, the Obama operation in Chicago is very concerned about all this. They are facing a presidential candidate who has switched gears from so-so to very good, a vice presidential candidate whose obvious qualities far eclipse the joker they are running, and a potential first lady people will like having around.
Romney looks to be a very confident candidate, projecting a presidential aura. He’ll bring that into the debates. Romney has the more recent experience with this forum, and he acquitted himself well in it during the primaries. He’ll be ready, and It will be hard for Obama to gain an advantage here.
And, in the way the Obama did to John McCain four years ago, the president is going to be vastly outspent.
Oh, and there’s one other little problem. The economy is bad, and the world is in turmoil.
Chicago, the home of Obama 2012 headquarters, is very afraid.
49 thoughts on “GOP Success: A White House the Nation Can Love”
Personally, I’m very tired of the Democratic “twofers” we have been getting. The role of first lady is not written into the U. S. Constitution. Hillary Clinton’s and Michelle Obama’s names were not on the ballot. How refreshing it will be to get a first lady who is her husband’s helpmeet and not an eminence grise.
I quit reading at the knock on Ann–again!
Me, too – that’s where I stopped.
Ditto….again:(
I did too.
Ann is not a career politician, she is a career wife and mother.
She was clearly very nervous at the beginning of her speech, but soon hit her stride and delivered IMO a great effort to connect to the women of this Country.
Well Done Ann.
I am looking forward to having you as our First Lady.
Things are sooo bad for Obama. It’s not really showing up in the polls. Look at this story from my state of Massachusetts where we even went for Reagan in 1984. Scott Brown is leading Eliz Warren by 6 in the polls.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2012/08/30/anti-obama-billboards-the-talk-of-hanson/
The last time I check the Republican candidate for Lieberman’s Senate seat is ahead too. I think CT’s numbers for Obama are soft like my state’s, OR.
Oregon – it’s typically been a blue state. High unemployment and many small businesses closed down. Very high food and gas prices (and still rising). Home prices in the tank. I’m afraid there are too many that get “free stuff” from the government – they have their hands out. The free stuff is more important to them than the country. I see more and more people paying for groceries with food stamps, and then leave in a new car smoking a cigarette. Also, the newspapers are very liberal left-slanted. When I talk to people here, they are so brainwashed by the media that they can’t see the forest for the trees. I’d love to see Oregon go red. But, I won’t hold my breath. I’ve said to a few folks, “Free stuff isn’t worth losing your freedoms,” they just shrug. Apparently, to them it is – and that’s just what Obama is counting on.
I’m looking forward to her speechifyin’ at the Dem convention where she’ll talk about how as a enormously wealthy liberal part-Cherokee house-flipping Harvard professor who has never had a job in the private sector is looking out for the ‘middle class’.
she’s just one of us, you know.
The DNC convention, don’t you mean the House of “Julia”™.
: ]
GJ
The Obamas Already Preparing for Move to Hawaii in January 2013: Hyde Park neighbors talking about Chicago house being sold soon
Read more http://hillbuzz.org/the-obamas-already-preparing-for-move-to-hawaii-in-january-2013-hyde-park-neighbors-talking-about-chicago-house-being-sold-soon-63935
The new post-campaign Obama strategy is to paint Romney and Ryan as liars. The “fact checkers” have been the headliners, especially on Ryan’s speech.
And, of course, the media are giving Obama a big boost in their support of that.
We’ll see next week how balanced the coverage of the Democratic convention is. I expect the reviews will be very positive and cast the GOP in even more of a negative light.
That’s the problem with our overexposed President. Nobody wants to hear him give one of his teleprompter speeches anymore. He’s lost credibilty and even the MSM can’t get him out of this mess.
Great move on Romney’s part:
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/31/romney-heads-to-hurricane-ravaged-new-orleans-obama-to-campaign-in-texas/
Ha. Obama spends the majority of his day on the luxurious AF1, while Romney goes to see for himself the damage.
Will there be some angry tweets later today? Debby W-S’s probably trying to think up some snark right now.
Excellent critique, Keith. Couldn’t agree more. Romney was stunningly ‘Presidential’ and Team Obama has every reason to be quaking in their boots. The bigger question is…did Romney reach the voters he needs to win? Unfortunately, the testimonials were not shown on prime time, nor did most of the cable channels carry them. I watched the entire Convention on CSPAN, but I doubt most others did. Team Romney needs to somehow keep those testimonials front and center, along with certain key phrases as you pointed out – ‘Obama promised to keep the oceans from rising – my promise is to help you and your family’.
The last hurdle will be the debates – Rommey will face strong headwinds with the lefties and their liberal moderators. I wonder why the Romney camp didn’t insist upon leveling the playing field! Hope he does a good job of wiping the smirk off the face of the Con Artist-in-Chief!
The meme of boring old White men being the heart of the Repub party was blown away in the last three days. The convention was exciting, interesting, surprising and eye-opening; what a line-up of fascinating, young up and comers, of serious leaders who promise, not pie-in-the-sky, but to work hard and do their best for all of us.
MrRomney’s speech was a reflection of everything he believes and a promise of a serious man to put our country back on track.
MrBush’s admonition to MrObama to stop attacking his brother, and to take responsibility for his own actions was fitting and about time.
MrEastwood knocked down the door, and kicked open the gate that the MSM had built to protect MrO from his critics. He shined a light on the hypocrisy of the “green” President with his gas-guzzling car and his frequent flights on AF1, burned him with his failure to close Gitmo and his insane policy of withdrawal in Afganistan. It was brilliant and well done by the one Hollywood icon that is above reproach. Bravo.
Well said, srdem. I’m a Republican, been one my whole adult life, so the opinion of a registered Democrat like yourself means more than any praise I could give them.
The shenanigans pulled by the establishment in the rules vote really jaded my opinion of Republicans, but it won’t stop me from voting for R&R and promoting every conservative candidate possible in the next few months. There will be other days to tangle with the good ol’ boys once we get America back on track. As Clint Eastwood said, “We own this country. We – we own it. It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.”
I appreciate what you’re saying, but you give me too much credit as a Dem; I’m a conservative Dem who supported the tea party’s agenda.
I do agree that the Repubs made a mistake shutting out the tea party reformers and sticking to the conventional establishment’s policies.
After all, it was the tea party that gave the Repubs the incentives to defy MrObama’s agenda for the last year and a half. No doubt, their shining star, MrRubio, was a beneficiary of the tea party, as was MrCruz of Texas. Shutting out MrsPalin, et al from the convention was wrong and counter-productive.
Ann Romney is exactly what she should be. The wife of Mitt Romney, a mother, a grandmother, and a first lady to be. All of the pieces of the Romney team mesh together perfectly with the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, and each part knows their part.
Aside from the continuing Ann Romney snarkiness, it was a very well written piece.
She’s not a professional shill like Michelle Obama and will do the job of
First Lady not a constant embarrassment like the current ‘person’.
Yes I may be old but give me a cookie baking First Lady any day just
exactly like Ann Romney!!!!
My last word if you added the cost of Michelle Obama’s wardrobe trips and questionable side trips and etc it would make Ann Romney’s
horse issue be it Dressage or just trotting around you would find MO
wins by a wide margin pun intended. Ann had hers paid for by her spouse we paid for the other one.
Jeff – wasn’t being snarky. She’d be a great first lady and a rock for a president to lean on is no small thing. I just don’t buy her women’s outreach schtick.
Who is to say whether her speech was a successful outreach or not. If she spoke from her heart( and I believe she did) and what she said was authentically who she is (and I believe it was) why called it “schtick’ if you are not being snarky?
Keith, I think any First Lady is put out there for one schtick or another. The fact this woman has MS and has been able to function effectively (Forget the speech, I mean in life) tells me all I need to know about her heart.
That’s good to know, that you don’t buy Anne Romney’s “women’s outreach schtick”. Great. Got it.
Curious about this though, Keith. Since you don’t buy schtick about “outreach”, when are you going to expose Michelle’s W.House garden organic vegetable bullshit, and the total “schtick” of whatever the hell you want to call running around to every place she can get on television shaking he fat ass under the guise of “Let’s Move” America.?
If that ain’t schtick I aint’ breathing.
I got one for ya’ Michelle. Let’s Move you the hell out of the Potomac basin and back to your lanai in Kailua, so you and hubby can have plenty of time of to start volume three of your “memoir”.
It comes across snarky, sorry I believed her. Looking at comments most women did also…
I did find her “women have it harder, women do it better” theme off-putting, and I’m a woman.
I am looking very much FORWARD to Nov. BYE BYE
Romney is never going to be the Greek columns kind of speaker,like we saw with Obama. And thank God for that!! I think he did exactly what he needed to do last night,make himself appear human and not the bloodsucker the Dems and the liberal media want us to believe.The guy seemed,well,like a normal guy. I could see him being my neighbor. The story about his Mom and Dad and the roses was absolutly touching. And what parent who’s kids have left the nest wasn’t longing for the days when your kids crawled into bed with you. As a mother of 3 boys, I knew exactly what he was talking about. He may never be a great orator,but I felt the sincerity in his speech,and thats what I want in a President.
I remember back when the primaries started and Dennis Miller was asked to comment on each of the candidates. He said if you looked under President in the dictionary,Mitt’s picture would be there.I think anyone watching last night would concur. He not only looks like a president ,but he acts like a president.
Wonderful post blondie.
Well said, Blondie! Love the quote from Dennis Miller.
One nite Miller said, “We are going to hell in a handbasket and we don’t even make the handbasket here anymore.” He can be pretty amusing.
“This is not the tweet of a confident man.” Heh.
http://networkedblogs.com/BBxeT
During the RNC convention, the party that ‘hates’ women presented:
– the 1st Latina woman governor, N.M.
– the 1st Sikh Indian-American woman governor, S.C.
– the 1st Black mayor woman in Utah- Haitian parents and a Mormon (think about this one….)
– the 1st Black woman U.S. Secretary of State (who also happens to be the first female member at Augusta National Golf Club)
Now, consider the above names versus the Democrat Party membership
“Now, consider the above names versus the Democrat Party membership.”
Techie – I rather not, I get nausea just thinking of them. ; )
You should send that to MSNBC… I dont think they ‘reported’ any of that during the RNC -LOL
I was waiting for your take on Romney & the convention – I’m (further) encouraged by your summary. If they can please Keith, they’ve done a good job.
Ubama should be running scared – he has nothing to say for himself and I see that Romney (smartly) didn’t return fire but by-passed Ubama’s small ball. Romney (actually all the speakers I saw) did a great job of rising above the pettiness of the left (the forever nit-picking and laser-like focus on inconsequential minutiae) and constructively hammered home that this country is about opportunity and appealed to everyone who doesn’t want to live the life of Julia. I have a hard time seeing how the dems sell their convention as anything than more of the same tripe they’ve been selling as solutions for the past 4 years. The only people that seem to still be buying that festering garbage are the MSM and the sheeple Ubama takes advantage with our tax dollars.
Keith, I have to agree wholeheartedly with you, regarding both the great line in the speech, and your assessment about the importance of Mitt telling us about himself, and connecting with the American people.
He certainly did that last night, and I believe he would do well to keep campaigning in a solid, but measured way, reassuring people that he is the most capable candidate — that he is the one who should be our President.
Back in 1980, the Presidential polls were relatively close until the one and only debate, held in late October (October 26th, for a November 4th Election Day).
Because of the perceived seismic shift in public opinion following that one encounter, and the subsequent lopsided and surprise result on election day, analysts have endlessly tried over the years to pin down exactly which comment or exchange between the two may have precipitated that last-second shift to Reagan. CBS News and the NY Times were apparently so startled with their consistently “off” results, that they conducted a detailed post mortem re-interview poll (of 90% of their 2,300 respondents) to try to determine how and why nearly 1 in 7 voters changed after that debate.
One thing seems certain . . . but for the debate (and, a few dramatic last second events as well) Ronald Reagan would still probably have won, but it is not as likely that he would have won by the significant margin (10%) that he did. Reagan got 51% to Carter’s 41, with Anderson getting only 7%, and 1% going to others. Anderson was scoring well in the summer of 1980, but the closer it got to election day, the more people moved away from him. Even at that, he generally polled better that he “produced” on election day.
Was it Reagan’s softly spoken zinger, “Well, there you go again!” in response to Carter’s attack on Reagan’s position on the initial Medicare bill?
Or, was it his famous summary query, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” followed by his series of sub-questions touching on all key aspects of American life?
My own view is that whatever the precipitating factors, that one debate gave Reagan the opportunity he needed to present himself to a large TV audience as a measured and competent leader. And by clearly doing so, he connected directly with those undecided voters. They were able to easily visualize him as a fully capable President, one who would be on their side, as opposed to the uncertainty and disappointment they had experienced with Jimmy Carter. We know now that the remaining “undecideds” broke strongly Reagan’s way, and he won by a landslide.
Point of interest: Among the many post-October 20th publicly published polls, the highest numerical percentage “score” Reagan achieved, prior to the election, was 46% (off by 5% from the election result). Reagan reached that high point on a few occasions, and in a few different polls over the crucial last few weeks of the campaign. Among the post-October 20th polls that year, the highest “score” Carter achieved was 45%, and that was only once — in a 10/25 Gallup poll, that actually had him up over by Reagan 45 – 42, with 9% for Anderson and 3% undecided. A few later polls — Washington Post on the 29th (43-39) and CBS/NYT on the 26th (42-39) — showed Carter leading Reagan by at least a few points. Most other polls showed Reagan with a slight lead.
But again, no published polls predicted the Reagan landslide of 10%.
With his speech last night, Romney began the process making that move — that connection — earlier on in the process. If he succeeds in connecting on anything like that level, Romney could score a big upset and by a significant margin.
Romney would have to win by a VERY large margin, or there will be allegations of vote supression and rampant, race-based cheating projected on the Republicans by the Democrats (it’s what they do, so they just assume Republicans would as well). The Occupyier in charge would simply use this as an excuse to sue well into Romney’s first term (al la Al Gore), and maybe even refuse to vacate the White House on January 20th and precipate a full-blown Constitutinal crisis that could ultimately lead to civil war. No other President in the history of this country has ever refused the peaceful transition of power even with dubious electoral results, but this one’s narcisissm and hubris, coupled with his hatred for this country, may make him the first.
It would seriously, perhaps fatally, damage the country if he did this (not that he hasn’t already), but what’s one country compared to the ego of the messiah? And would it really bother him to see the United States brought so low that it was riven into sectarian violence? That would make us more like the countries he admires, and definintely reduce our ability to “dictate to other counties” as he so famously apologized for as the first agenda item of his first term.
Such a maneuver may give him everything he wants for our country, even if Romney wins. He is DSM IV certifiably narcisisstic, so I wouldn’t put it past him.
Well, I certainly agree that there will be numerous “allegations of voter suppression.” There always are. In particular, I can recall a news story (I think it was a wire service story) from back in 2004, when John Kerry was running. He made a campaign stop in Georgia to pay his “respects” to former resident Carter, and the two of them stood on the podium and quite straight-faced, they alleged that in the 2000 election, several million black and minority voters in Florida had been denied the right to vote! They, of course, offered nothing in the way of proof, and numerous prior investigations and probes into the results had not produced proof of even one single instance of any such race or ethnicity-based voter suppression. Not one! There was, however, substantial proof that a considerable number of ineligible people, including felons and non-citizens, had illegally voted in Florida in 2000.
There will also be considerable efforts at cheating, though I would not make the claim that it will be race-based. This is all about party and ideology, and the particular complexion of voter fraud that occurs in any geographic area will be reflective of the demographic makeup of that area. For example, I have looked at the numbers from 2008 in Minnesota, and sadly there are very strong indications of a rampant form of voter fraud there. That State not only allows election day registration — which is an invitation to fraud — but it also allows a pernicious practice called “vouching,” whereby a single previously registered voter can “vouch” for up to 15 new voters on election day, regardless of whether they have any identification at all, or any proof whatsoever that they live in the precinct where they are attempting to vote. People could travel from precinct to precinct within a single city, give a false name, and rely on a single registered voter there to “vouch” that they live in that district.
The current Democrat Governor, Mark Dayton, vetoed a bill that would have corrected that problem (and others as well), so the Republican majorities in both houses put the issue directly on the ballot this year. Then the DFL Sec’y of State tried to change the titles on those ballot initiatives to make them much less “attractive” but his actions were just stopped by the MN Supreme Court.
We seem to agree, but you misunderstand me on one point. I am NOT making the claim that there would be raced based cheating. I am simply stating that, since the only weapon they have left with any force is allegations of racism, the other side will claim that Republicans are indulging in race-based cheating.
Race only enters into it because the Democrats wish it. It works for them despite their own horrible anti-Black racial history; despite having had Klan leaders at the highest ranks of their party (viz. “Exauted Cyclops” Robert Byrd); despite the fact that Democrats have done more to destroy Black families with programs that encourage poor behaviour and punish responsibility; and despite the fact that Democrats are the ones that tell Black people they cannot compete unless the Government first discriminates against White people on their behalf. It was a Democrat who “stood in the schoolhouse door”; it was a Democrat who turned fire hoses on protestors in Birmingham; Modern Democrats say the most horrible things about Blacks who do not toe the party line that you can imagine; and yet they are considered the party of choice for most Blacks.
This also ignores the history of the Republican party, which was founded precisely to combat pro-slavery Southern Democrats; The Republicans which Lyndon Johnson had to reach out to for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, breaking a Democrat fillibuster; despite the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, under a Republican President.
Why can’t the Republican party “reach out”? Not racism, but rather because of their founding principles of freedom, including freedom to fail. See http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-is-the-black-vote-in-the-democratic-pocket/
For a little more on civil rights and Republicans;
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml
Democrats need to keep the hate alive. It’s all they have, and the only thing that protects them from being vetted themelves.
I don’t know how you can summarily decide that Ann romney’s outreach to women was a ‘bust’. I don’t know exactly what you think women care about I can assure you it’s the very same issues that concern men: jobs, the ecnomy and keeping our heads above water. This woman finds Romney to be a veritable gale-force breath of fresh air from the pompous, imperious gasbag of the last four years (and I don’t mean that bitchy). She is a lady of gentle dignity and I look forward to her returning a large measure of class to the People’s House/
@Anne Lieberman August 31, 2012 at 1:01 pm
With regard to your link to this “furniture” issue Mr. Obama has raised by “tweet”, obviously intended as a cheap shot aimed at Clint Eastwood, I personally think an apt response might be as follows:
“For the time being, yes. But in the mean time would you please take your feet off the Resolution Desk?!!
Or, as Clint Eastwood might appropriately put it:
“WE own this desk!”
Where’s the thumbs up button.
Thanks, Sadie.
It is now posted on Twitter, in direct response, here.
That should earn me a few nasty come-backs! Heh. Oh well!
Just read your bio. I also read Legal Insurrection and highly recommend http://www.bookwormroom.com/ to you.
Tell them Sadie sent you. ; )
Got them linked in!
Let us not forget Clint Eastwood’s speech. It really cracked up many people, including my husband and I. The talking heads on MSNBC had absolutely
no sense of humor. They kept saying Clint was getting senile. I only watched MSNBC because I had heard they were good for a laugh. They were. Clint made my day.
Comments are closed.