A reader writes:
It’s striking how well this convention is organized compared to the RNC. The speeches contain themes and ideas that rebound and reinforce each other. From the subtle and aggressive attack lines in the earlier speeches against Romney’s truthfulness and being out of touch to Michelle Obama’s positive recitations of Barack’s own qualities, empathy, and poor background. Themes like opportunity and investment ring throughout with speakers designed to appeal to different audiences, without sounding forced or cliched.
Compare that to “we did build that,” “I love women,” and “humanize Mitt” – the three things the Romney campaign told us the first day was about. It’s the difference between well-crafted oratory and hamfisted, obvious attempts to check boxes, recite lines, and accomplish goals.
Another writes:
Did the Republicans sleep through their convention? Are there vastly more Democrats in the hall? What’s going on? The energy and enthusiasm tonight – the first night of the convention – is simply no comparison to anything we saw in Tampa last week. Going into tonight the media asked questions about flagging Democratic enthusiasm. Is this the awakening of a slumbering Democratic machine?
Another:
I’ve read many pundits discuss (bemoan, praise, deny) the Republican Party’s shift to far-right, including yourself, and I had a thought (just one!) about the matter after watching tonight’s convention: This very real shift has had a corollary effect of shifting the Left to the Center. I will leave it to you to tease out the truth or falsity of this observation if you so cared. For me, it was more a feeling. I watched Dems bring the essences of opportunity and personal responsibility to the fore, as well as praise successful governmental interventions and the communitarianism so integral to their party’s record. And this all felt Centric, every bit of it. Our parties are undoubtedly connected; when one brand molds, the other is bound to blossom.
Another:
No doubt Michelle delivered a wonderful speech, but I really have to call you out on your supposed “conservative” appreciation of the first night of the convention.
There was a lot of unfair framing of the abortion debate, as is typical of the Democrats. There were also many mean and pointless swipes at Romney for his bank accounts etc. Otherwise, spending, spending, spending (also known as “investments”), without a mention of the national debt. Seriously? And are we meant to be reassured by the rock star status of the mayors of LA and Chicago, the govs of Maryland and Illinois? These places are basically bankrupt and plagued by rising crime, poor educational results, etc. At least they had the decency not to foist any Californians on us. The GOP was killed for not having sufficient specifics, but at least they mentioned employment and the debt. Not a word from these supposed “conservatives”.
Update from a reader:
I’ll let the residents of Illinois and California speak for themselves, but I can tell you that Maryland has falling crime (the lowest in nearly 40 years), the highest median household incomes in the nation, and top-ranked public schools (my son just started pre-K yesterday). Your reader’s list of Reagan-era stereotypes doesn’t match the reality of life here in the Free State.
Another:
Your comment on the First Lady’s speech having been a speech that “a presidential candidate could be proud of” got me thinking. Perhaps she doesn’t want it (and I sense she doesn’t), and perhaps she genuinely wants to get out of the public spotlight one day (which I sense she does), but if Michelle Obama’s ambition extended this far, it bears noting that Sen. Mark Kirk, Republican of Illinois, is up for re-election in an ever-bluer state in 2016. Hillary Clinton made the transition from spouse to candidate, and I’d posit that Hillary was far more polarizing and less popular in 2000 than Michelle seems likely to be in 2016. Not to mention, there’s no carpetbagging charge to be had.
Good reactions tonight – thanks for calling Ted Strickland out.
Another defends Strickland:
While I agree with your statement that Mitt Romney has the right to do whatever he wants with his money, and while I recognize that everything that he has done has been legal (insert “we don’t actually know about his taxes” line here), I think Gov. Strickland did what many have been clamoring for – he called a lie a lie: “On what he’s saying about the president’s policy for welfare to work, he’s lying. Simple as that.”
I find the frankness refreshing. He acknowledged what many middle-class Democrats feel about Mitt Romney – that we are but “numbers on a spreadsheet” to him, that he cares for nothing but the bottom line, that he is so cravenly ambitious that he sprints away from his signature public sector accomplishment because it has become politically problematic.
In regards to the “Cayman Islands” lines, I think Strickland pointed out something key – what do Romney’s actions say about him, as a man and as an American? Sure, he has the right to these tax havens and the means to pursue every advantage possible, but just because he can, does that mean that he should? I think it IS unpatriotic for a person to do whatever he or she can to avail themselves of their means to avoid paying into the social safety net, to avoid participating in the democracy and the government which he is asking us to let him lead. He’s clearly somewhat ashamed of it, or else he’d explain it.
The Dish 