The Republicans ran more effective campaigns in 2000 and 2004. They are adept at campaigning, and despite awareness of the tactics, adopting Rove's guidelines remains an effective, albeit eristic, tool for them.
But Palin's performance was merely the exectution and staging of a speech she didn't write. The GOP had a VP acceptance speech prepared, as you've probably heard/read elsewhere, but determined it was too macho and determined they had to start over from scratch on short notice when Palin was named.
So while the defense is well-orchestrated - and one would expect nothing less - the fact is it leaves most if not all of the real questions not merely unanswered, but unaddressed. None of the words were Palin's choice: the content reflects nothing but GOP talking points, and while Ms. Palin delivered them creditably she adopted the role of a talking head, revealing to neither the media nor the voters anything beyond her ability to handle somebody else's prepared rhetoric.
Credit the speech writers for what substance there was, although the AP questions the veracity of many points. But make no mistake:
That wasn't "Palin's speech" at all; Sarah Palin was delivering a well-scripted performance. It concealed her by cloaking her in familiar old-school GOP platitudes and rhetorical barbs, many of which such as the tax refrain have been debunked and disproven already. But the GOP has seldom lost relying on time-tested Rovian tactics and lies, have they?
No comments:
Post a Comment