RNC Final Night: Um...What?
I watched the final night of the Republican National Convention on TV last night, and I have to say: I'm baffled and I'm scared.
I saw three speakers: Marco Rubio, Clint Eastwood, and Mitt Romney. I thought that Rubio was terrific. I agree with him about nothing, but he spoke well and passionately and I have no doubt we'll see more of him; his future as a star of the party is assured. (Interestingly, I found no one fact checking him. Does that mean he didn't need it, his speech didn't warrant it, or that he dazzled journalists so thoroughly that they didn't bother?) Eastwood was baffling and a bit pathetic (video), rambling on to an empty chair and not really making much sense. Who thought this was a good idea?
As for Romney, I'm not sure what the point of his speech was. He spent the first full 25 minutes reintroducing himself to the country. He bashed the President (expected), he praised women (apparently he thinks we can run businesses and govern, but can't make decisions about our own bodies), talked about his own life (most of which we'd heard before), and lauded the American Family (one man and one woman, of course). All I could think was, after 6 years of campaigning for this role, the country knows who he is; we couldn't escape him. Surely he didn't think any of this was new, did he?
But then he began to talk about his policies and his perspective. What I took away from this segment of his speech is that, as jaylake put it so eloquently, he has an elastic relationship with the truth. President Obama started his first term with an apology tour? Russia is our biggest enemy? We should intervene in Syria? President Obama raised taxes on the middle class? Business is more important than the environment? Corporate regulations kill business? (Well, that canard, at least, is a familiar one.) (The Washington Post fact-checked the speech and found some pretty egregious stuff.)
But most astonishingly, Mitt Romney said that President Obama promised to stop the rising of the oceans--and the audience laughter swelled like the tides in Louisiana. There, as thousands fled the floodwaters of Hurricane Isaac, the Republican candidate made a climate change joke and the party laughed. If I needed any more evidence that this party lacks compassion, that was the defining proof for me. Beyond the fact that it's also evidence of a lack of connection with scientific reality, the fact that a candidate for leadership of our nation could mock the phenomenon that is drowning our coasts and our citizens tells me that this man isn't fit to serve. Well, that and the war mongering, the peculiar provocation of aggrieved resentment, and the mishmashed presentation of disconnected, weirdly disparate ideas.*
I don't understand this man. I don't understand this manifestation of the Republican party. I just . . . don't get it. But it scares the hell out of me.
* On the subject of aggrieved resentment, I think this quote says it all: “The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” (Washington Post, 8/29/12)
I saw three speakers: Marco Rubio, Clint Eastwood, and Mitt Romney. I thought that Rubio was terrific. I agree with him about nothing, but he spoke well and passionately and I have no doubt we'll see more of him; his future as a star of the party is assured. (Interestingly, I found no one fact checking him. Does that mean he didn't need it, his speech didn't warrant it, or that he dazzled journalists so thoroughly that they didn't bother?) Eastwood was baffling and a bit pathetic (video), rambling on to an empty chair and not really making much sense. Who thought this was a good idea?
As for Romney, I'm not sure what the point of his speech was. He spent the first full 25 minutes reintroducing himself to the country. He bashed the President (expected), he praised women (apparently he thinks we can run businesses and govern, but can't make decisions about our own bodies), talked about his own life (most of which we'd heard before), and lauded the American Family (one man and one woman, of course). All I could think was, after 6 years of campaigning for this role, the country knows who he is; we couldn't escape him. Surely he didn't think any of this was new, did he?
But then he began to talk about his policies and his perspective. What I took away from this segment of his speech is that, as jaylake put it so eloquently, he has an elastic relationship with the truth. President Obama started his first term with an apology tour? Russia is our biggest enemy? We should intervene in Syria? President Obama raised taxes on the middle class? Business is more important than the environment? Corporate regulations kill business? (Well, that canard, at least, is a familiar one.) (The Washington Post fact-checked the speech and found some pretty egregious stuff.)
But most astonishingly, Mitt Romney said that President Obama promised to stop the rising of the oceans--and the audience laughter swelled like the tides in Louisiana. There, as thousands fled the floodwaters of Hurricane Isaac, the Republican candidate made a climate change joke and the party laughed. If I needed any more evidence that this party lacks compassion, that was the defining proof for me. Beyond the fact that it's also evidence of a lack of connection with scientific reality, the fact that a candidate for leadership of our nation could mock the phenomenon that is drowning our coasts and our citizens tells me that this man isn't fit to serve. Well, that and the war mongering, the peculiar provocation of aggrieved resentment, and the mishmashed presentation of disconnected, weirdly disparate ideas.*
I don't understand this man. I don't understand this manifestation of the Republican party. I just . . . don't get it. But it scares the hell out of me.
* On the subject of aggrieved resentment, I think this quote says it all: “The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.” (Washington Post, 8/29/12)