
Aug. 29, 2012
In his vice presidential acceptance address to the GOP delegates gathered at the St. Petersburg Times Forum, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan said that his musical playlists starts with AC/DC and ends with Zeppelin. It was a good line and a very effective means of humorously highlighting his generational differences with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who will address the convention Thursday.
While the rock-and-roll atmosphere for Ryan’s speech in Tampa was palpable, it was nowhere near as strong as it was in St. Paul for the 2008 GOP convention when then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin vocalized for the Republican crowd a newly personified, highly re-energized sense they were sure would carry them to an Election Day triumph. It didn’t, though, and her follow-up albums, so to speak, were disappointing.
Still, in rock and roll terms, Palin was without question, the main event that Wednesday night four years ago in St. Paul. Unfortunately for Ryan, he was overshadowed Wednesday in Tampa by what a concertgoer might call a “warm-up act.”
Instead of energizing the crowd the way Palin did, Ryan was playing to an already inspired audience. He did a decent job of keeping the mood high, but for all but the most partisan Republicans and Tea Partiers, it was obvious from Ryan’s first words that the night’s rhetorical highlight had come and gone.
The GOP faithful gathered in Tampa liked what Ryan had to say, much as the crowd in Minnesota four years back liked what Palin had to say. But across the nation, the electorate already had been delivered to a kind of rhetorical promised land by way of a tour de force speaking performance by Dr. Condoleezza Rice of Stanford, who – in what may come to be viewed through the lens of history as the biggest moment of the 2012 GOP convention – successfully redefined herself as not just a former Bush administration secretary of state but as a humanitarian educator with an altruistic nature. In doing so, she not only overshadowed a comparatively partisan speech by Ryan with an expansive, inclusionary speech, she may well have laid the groundwork for a future political run in her home state of California.
Despite telling NBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she was happy in Palo Alto and that her future was at Stanford and with her students, her soaring rhetoric stands out as the most inclusive and quintessentially American speech by a non-candidate since a young state senator named Barack Obama electrified Democrats and the nation in his 2004 keynote speech on behalf of the John Kerry-John Edwards ticket in Boston.
Kerry lost that election, but Obama emerged with both national recognition and a proven ability to inspire the masses through the power of his rhetoric. How well he has translated that ability into action as president is debatable, and the outcome of the 2012 contest is still unknown, but one thing is certain: Rice proved herself at least Obama’s equal in giving a speech that a wide swath of the electorate can watch and not feel like the speaker was out to get them.
In short, Rice sounded like an American, with the best interests of the American people and her country at heart. Ryan, for all his rock-and-roll rhetoric, sounded like just another young Republican with a fresh face, wearing trousers this time instead of a skirt, singing the same old tunes we heard four years ago. A few of the lyrics and the stage set may have changed, but for Ryan and the GOP, the song remains the same.
If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.
Sources:
Punditty watches RNC convention coverage on MSNBC.
Politico link to Rice’s RNC speech
Politico link to Ryan’s RNC speech
Relive the magic of Sarah Palin’s 2008 VP acceptance speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62wyVtaAI
Also of Interest:
Or add related content to this report
News Stories | Blogs | Images | Videos | Comments
Obviously you don't know much about Condoleezza Rice, she has always been a great speaker in her own right. She introduced G.W. in 2000 with a fantastic speech laying out why she's a republican. Her father joined the Republican Party because the democrats would not allow him in because he was black.
For those who think the Democratic Party is the hope for blacks, don't know the truth. Blacks are still enslaved by the Democrats by portraying them as victims. Rice is the true model for blacks of any age.
Yeah, she may be a good public speaker, and that may be all that's needed to be governor of California these days.
But, sorry, the content of her speech deliberately, consciously, strangely, quietly, surreptitiously, avoided mentioning one very large 800 pound gorilla sitting in the front row of that convention hall: Iraq. Not one word...again...not a single word about America's longest war, that cost upwards of 5,000 American lives, injured and maimed another 45,000, and killed an untold and probably unknowable number of Iraqi men, women and children -- not to mention, of course, a $1 trillion price tag. All under her stewardship and guidance, along with those other war criminals: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., etc. etc.
How could such a "great speaker" avoid at least giving a backhanded recognition to that monumental catastrophe? If she was the leader that so many of us have come to believe, her speech would not have just mentioned the Iraq War, but she would have apologized for it.
Excellent report. Rated up/shared.
Herb, what do you know about the whole truth of the Iraqi war besides the simpleton 2 minute news from CNN or the like. As the Security Adviser and the Secretary of State, do you think she's at liberty to say what she knows?
The truth is Herb, you can't even hold a candle to this lady. She should have been the president instead of the one that is there now if not for the butchers in the left. And the world would be much better off than now.
Of course Rice is not at liberty to publicly discuss classified national security matters, nor should she be.
As for U.S. involvement in Vietnam, I have researched the subject extensively. A couple of points and a reading suggestion:
1. Don't take the word of former KGB spies over the word of the American press without first asking yourself about the possible motives for the KGB storyline. While it is true that the Soviet Union was pleased to see dissent in the U.S. over the Vietnam War and capitalized on it as far as it could given the constraints of the Cold War, it is also true than Ivan had and continues to have motives contrary to those of the U.S., and after-the-fact works by former Soviet-era spies may be a direct consequence of those covert motives.
2. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, used to justify U.S. escalation in Vietnam, did not happen as LBJ, McNamara and the administration said at the time. In fact, it may never have happened at all. McNamara himself admitted as much during the mid-1990s when he wrote a tell-all book about his days as Defense secretary.
Was Mac lying in the 1990s for reasons we civilians can't fathom? It's possible, but the fact remains that by all objective standards, McNamara was *not* a puppet for the Soviets, and Mac, along with LBJ, was responsible for the escalation. Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Breshnev had little or nothing to do with it.
The anti-war movement was a direct response to the U.S. escalating a war we could not win, a war we had no business waging for national security, a war JFK did not want, and a war that not only led to a loss of faith in the so-called American Way but directly contributed to the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after the war in Vietnam (as well as the secret war in Laos, waged from the Ike years through the Nixon-Kissinger years) destabilized Southeast Asia.
3. To read a very good accounting of the entangled mess that was U.S. involvement in Vietnam, check out "A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam" by Neil Sheehan. I would go so far as to say it is a must-read for anyone wanting to better understand the complexities of U.S. involvement in Vietnam.