Last night, Sarah Palin gave a powerful speech. She did not stumble and proved herself to be an effective and charasmatic orator. It certainly should be noted that she's a very effective hatchet (wo)man. She used her network time, which was reduced by the self-serving and over-the-top Rudy Giuliani, to make clear to the American people that she is against an Obama presidency. Obviously, this is what the GOP expects their candidate for Vice President to do. Sarah Palin did a great job of introducing the American people to her good-looking family and the endearing subtleties of life in small town Alaska. The cameras constantly shifted back and forth between Palin and her pregnant daughter Bristol (with her shotgun fiancee in tow). Even a candid, and admittedly adorable, moment where Piper Palin licked her hand in order to smooth back the hair of Trig Palin was captured. I can only imagine that the American people let out a collective "awww."
However, for me at least, that's where the charm ended. It's nothing new for the Republicans to embrace negativity at their convention. In fact they've been doing just that since the Nixon days. Really, this is what they have to do. Republicans win elections by highlight divisive wedge issues and polarizing the country. They accuse Democrats of "raising taxes" and "killing babies." Also, there is the timeless allegation that Democrats are "going to take your guns away!" Unfortunately for the Republicans, basically none of this is ever true. Barack Obama is not going to raise your taxes. Unless that is, you make over $200,000 a year and can afford to pay extra in order to help middle class working Americans. Barack Obama is not going to kill any babies. In fact, while Obama is pro-choice, he wants to pursue sex education policies that will lead to fewer unwanted pregnanices which, in turn, naturally leads to fewer abortions. Isn't that a good thing? No, Barack Obama isn't going to take away anybody's guns. It's pretty much impossible to argue against that for two reasons: 1) it's so ridiculous that it's laughable; and 2) giving it more than a passing thought lends it undue credibility. Anyways, I digress. Sarah Palin's speech was notable for its offensiveness, cruelty, and utter lack of substance. She certainly seemed to delight in claiming that community organizers have no actual responsibilities, but she failed to make the case of how her experience as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska lead her to a better understanding of working Americans. Also, in regards to John McCain, we heard inspiring rhetoric about his trying experience as a POW, but nothing about what he would do as president. She didn't sell his candidacy at all. All I know from watching her speech as that John McCain was a POW in Vietnam. Oh, and because of that experience, he will bring the change we need to America. Nothing about what he would do, or how he would govern? Isn't that sort of important? Finally, what about the economy? She made no mention of home foreclosures, gas prices, unemployment or any other major economic concerns. In addition, there was absolutely nothing about what a McCain-Palin administration would do to stimulate a stagnant economy. Palin indicated that while offshore drilling isn't the cure-all solution to our energy ills, that shouldn't stop us from drilling. Ok, fine, but what else are you going to do? That's right, you are going to invest in wind energy and renewable fuels. With what money exactly? If we're going to stay in Iraq of 1000 years like McCain wants to, with a $10 billion a month price tag, can we really afford to do that?
Sarah Palin used her time in the spotlight in order to divide Americans along the same old cultural lines. Yet she did so without proposing any solutions. Democrats are cosmopolitan elitists that love eating arugula and drinking Belgian beer; but we are just like you! In addition she lied about Barack Obama's tax policies. (Fact: He's going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans and increase family rebates by $1000) She also lied about her opposition to the "Bridge to Nowhere." She was for it and then turned against it as it became increasingly unpopular politcally. One more inaccuracy I'll mention, among many others, despite her seemingly heartfelt support for families with special needs children, she actually slashed funding for special education programs by 62%! I mean, what! (Evidence for this point is in the link I provided above in regards to the "Bridge to Nowhere")
It's hard to tell how the speech will play out. I have no doubt that she will appeal to many Americans. However, her sarcastic and negative tone will likely turn off just as many. Also, working people are looking for someone who will uplift them economically. Not exactly someone that is like them (which she isn't anyways). At some point she's going to have to be made available to the media, and that should be, shall we say, interesting.
Photo courtesy of Flickr user MBS1983 September 1, 2008
