By Matt Maul
I’ll say one thing; Sarah Palin’s no Dan Quayle.
They said that she had to hit a home run with her RNC speech Wednesday night. And based on the reaction, she did.
I don’t think I’m overstating this when I say that there was a good amount of drama leading up to the event.
In “The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008,” Mark Halperin and John Harris give an overview of American politics and discuss how twenty-four hour news cycles and the rise of the “new media” has created what they call the “Freak Show.” They characterize this as a political culture that encourages candidates, activists, interest groups, and the news media to emphasize ideological extremism and personal attack.
Without question, the Right has been the main beneficiary of the “Freak Show.” But, the Left has shown itself to be a fast learner.
Since her pick was announced last week, the “Freak Show” was in full force as a number of news items came out on Palin that ran the gamut from legitimate to weird.
Arguably, the most damaging is the assertion that although Palin proudly rails against federal earmarks, she lobbied on behalf of Alaska for hundreds of millions in pork.
There’s also been some twittering about Palin’s possible ties with controversial organizations such as “Jews for Jesus”?
In an “I can’t believe she wrote that” moment, Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, questioned whether or not a mother of five could fulfill the duties of the vice president:“Is she prepared for the all-consuming nature of the job? She is the mother of five children, one of them a four-month-old with Down Syndrome. Her first priority has to be her children. When the phone rings at three in the morning and one of her children is really sick what choice will she make?”
Then, of course, there’s the issue of Palin’s pregnant daughter Bristol. “US Magazine” ran a cover story on Palin under the headline “Babies, Lies, & Scandal.” A report that Jamie Lynn Spears, another famous teenage mom, bought Bristol a baby gift added to the tabloid nature of the story.
A low point was reached when rampant Internet rumors suggested that Sarah Palin’s baby, Trig, is actually her daughter’s child. There were even some ridiculous suggestions that a paternity test should be taken.
As the title suggests, “The Way to Win” concludes with a list of “ways” to succeed in the “Freak Show” environment. One of those approaches prescribes “When you are attacked, respond to the accusations that are false and over-reaching, so you don't have to address the true ones.”
That might explain the RNC's tactic on Wednesday night to launch an all-out offensive against the media focusing on the more salacious stories that involve the Palin family and the clear double standard (almost sexist) elements implicit in criticisms like the Sally Quinn piece. Attacking the media is never a bad approach for Republican audiences and Palin does give the GOP someone to rally behind.
A theme the Democrats hit on regarding the RNC is the idea that the “Twin Cities” convention symbolized the link between President Bush and John McCain. I’d suggest that a more accurate “twin” analogy are the two schools of thought on the Palin pick within the Republican party.
One school was quite excited. The other had some with deep misgivings.
Republican consultant Mike Murphy and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan were caught on tape ridiculing the choice of Sarah Palin after an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd.
Murphy suggested that, from a "blue swing state" strategy, the Palin pick is “never going to work.”
"It's over," said Noonan more definitively. Then, regarding the question of whether Palin is the most qualified Republican woman McCain could have chosen, she said, "The most qualified? No. I think they went for this—excuse me—political bullshit about narratives." Geez, Peggy, tell us what do you really think?
So, going into Wednesday night, Palin was faced with the almost clichéd task of hitting a home run to win the big game. If I liked baseball movies, I’d insert a clip from The Natural here (btw, didn’t the Redford character strike out in the book?).
The lead in speeches from Mitt Romney (who was only fair), Mike Huckabee (down to earth), and Rudy Giuliani (like Fred Thompson, much better here than he ever was while campaigning) were very tough on the Democrats.
This set the stage for Palin who, according to Charles Krauthammer, didn't just provide political red-meat for the GOP audience, she "slaughtered a small cow."
Shortly after her selection, I blogged that Sarah Palin bears a strong resemblance to Battlestar Galatica’s president Laura Roslin.
I don’t want to overdo the comparison, but Palin and Roslin have things other than appearance in common. Both women find themselves paired up with an old warrior and thrown into a high-pressure situation that neither could have anticipated. I was tempted to look up clips of Roslin speeches from BSG and see how they lined up with Palin’s effort last night. Thankfully, my inner “anti-geek” prevailed, and I didn't.
As I said at the start, Palin is NO Dan Quayle. Regardless of what one thinks about her qualifications or her positions, Palin’s delivery was perfect. She didn’t appear nervous at all and was a "natural" at reading the teleprompter (which even malfunctioned at one point).
Afterward, Chris Matthews compared Palin to another fictional heroine, Norma Rae.
Certainly, Palin’s hardball approach in this political drama has opened the door for her opponents to mount an aggressive response. But, for the moment, based on the reaction of those at the convention and most of the media talking heads: they like her… they really, really like her.
Matt Maul is author of the blog Maul of America.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Notes on the RNC #4: A Pit Bull With Lipstick
Labels:
Matt Maul,
Sarah Palin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
But, for the moment, based on the reaction of those at the convention and most of the media talking heads: they like her… they really, really like her.
I'll agree with that, but ... so what?
According to the focus group reports, her speech looks like it's alienating independent voters in large margins. If she fires up the base with red meat attacks from the culture wars but alienates moderates, then she's not helping the ticket in the slightest.
The base and the media were blown away by Pat Buchanan's speech in 1992, too. How did that turn out?
I posted some comments in the RNC #3 thread pointing out some, well, concerns I had with last nights speeches. Out of laziness this is what it was:
I would say I saw a speech by Gov. Palin that lacked any discussion of policy or positions on issues(any mention of the economy, the housing crisis, etc. at all?), that consisted of already disproven accomplishments and false claims to outsider status (see that troublesome "bridge to nowhere" or her employing lobbyists to receive earmarks), and was almost entirely made up of sarcastic derision (also largely untrue, see Obama never authoring a major law or reform...umm, what?for one example), following the tone set by Romney, Huckabee and Rudy (who's speech was offensive on so many levels its somewhat hard to believe: "On the other hand, you have a resume from a gifted man with an Ivy League education. He worked as a community organizer" that last line said with condecension and played for laughter.Or, "For four days in Denver, the Democrats were afraid to use the words 'Islamic terrorism.' I imagine they believe it is politically incorrect to say it. I think they believe it will insult someone. Please, tell me, who are they insulting, if they say "Islamic terrorism?" They are insulting terrorists.").
It's nice to see the new talking point is the pathetic trope of insulting Obama for spending time as a community organizer.
Seriously, you write: "Rudy Giuliani (like Fred Thompson, much better here than he ever was while campaigning." Really, do you support that insulting speech and claim it was great?
Outside of any political differences I do feel the need to critique this fine blog for the level of commentary provided the last few days. This has nothing to do where one sits on any political fence but more so with what seems like a clear lowering of the quality standards of writing here. Even if I were a diehard Republican I can't say I would find anything in this writeup that isn't some simple summary. I know most around here scoff at that as poor film criticism. Lets call it as it is and say this is shitty journalism as well. Sorry to be a wet rag but I find it hard to believe either Keith or ex-ed Matt that you truly find this up to the fine standard you've set for this site. End of rant.
This is not interesting. I know I'm not the only one sad to see The House Next Door posting "analysis" of the latest political "event?"
I must ask why?
A serious forum to discuss art & culture (moving picture art, in particular) fills a MAJOR void in the media. Does more coverage of Sara Palin's speech fill a void? What makes anyone think the house next door will provide anything different than the galaxy of bs & partisan hackery that's already out there?
It's been four hours since this post went up, and as I write, it looks like I'll have the first comment. (I noticed that Nomi and Robert exchanged views on Palin in the RNC post below this one.) I take it that Palin was so good last night that the folks who populate this board with anti-Republican sentiment are temporarily speechless.
Robert, in his exchange with Nomi, gave what will be the best response Obama supporters can muster about Palin's speech.
But it's obvious: The GOP has a rock star. These personalities transcend the back and forth about policies, and that clearly bothers liberals, who *know* they're right on the issues, and that conservatives are wrong. Just as the Clintons' "rock star" status frustrated conservatives to no end. (Yes, I know that "progressives" don't hold the Clintons in high esteem.)
The euphoria on the Right is, I sense, something that will linger. Palin might get elected. If not, she'll be the future of the party.
Get used to her.
Is that true? Most media talking heads really love her?! I don't watch American television, I'm German. But I watched her speech and, well, she's almost a caricature of herself. Like a comedian doing the voice just a little bit too shrill. I guess I just want to say: I will lose my faith in the American democracy if the Republicans get elected again. I really will.
In response to anon, not all media types love her. I know Keith Olberman is not exactly fair minded but I thought his comments were amusing after Palin's speech. He compared her to Tracy Flick in Election!
Count me as another vote for "please stop". This is such a great site - my favorite place on the net for commentary and discussion about films and television... but this election coverage
a) isn't remotely up to the "wow, that's such a great insight that I would never have though of!" caliber that we're used to here and
b) doesn't belong on this site.
Now it's presumptuous of me to tell you what does or doesn't belong on your site... but it's more weirdly presumptuous to keep pointing out that there's more to life than film - as though this were the only website any of your readers ever read and if we don't get politics from THND then we won't know what's up.
The thought that the site will be clogged with re-blogged conventional wisdom and talking points from now to November is a huge bummer.
Otto...But, for the moment, based on the reaction of those at the convention and most of the media talking heads: they like her… they really, really like her.
I'll agree with that, but ... so what?
Well, they could have hated her and then reported how bad she did all day today and the election would probably have been a formality.
According to the focus group reports, her speech looks like it's alienating independent voters in large margins.
I'm surprised my local paper (The Detroit Free Press) had time to cover anything else but Kwame Kilpatrick (he resigned today).
Actually, the small "focus group" they use is hardly conclusive. Certainly not enough to support the proposition that Palin is "alienating independent voters in large margins." That might yet to prove true, but the Freep article doesn't prove it.
Roberb..."Rudy Giuliani (like Fred Thompson, much better here than he ever was while campaigning." Really, do you support that insulting speech and claim it was great?
I didn't say "great," just "better." He seems to have come out of that apparent nervous breakdown he suffered while actually campaigning for himself.
Anon...Most media talking heads really love her?
Actually, I said "like her." And, yes, for now they apparently do. This morning on MSNBC Willie Geist and Mika Brzezinski were singing her praises. Chris Matthews (who got a tingle down his leg over Obama) was quite complimentary as well. Again, it's still early in the process.
Palin's speech appeared to energize both bases. I think a lot of Dems watched last night to see what the hubaloo was all about, which would account for the estimated 37 million viewers. But while she got the choir she preached to cheer, she got the even more people to open their pocketbooks... for Obama.
Since the speech last night, Obama has raised over $10 Million dollars.
Says Obama spokesman Bill Burton, "I hope she gives a speech every day until the election."
Did anyone else think "mean cheerleader in high school" while hearing her talk?
- mercury
Discman said: It's been four hours since this post went up, and as I write, it looks like I'll have the first comment
well, that was proven wrong quite easily, yes? perhaps a point that the rest of your post is proved as easily wrong...perhaps...
But it's obvious: The GOP has a rock star.
honestly, this shit writes itself too easily. I don't claim you speak for the McCain campaign, but they just spent however long claiming Obama was unqualified to lead based on that same assertion, that he's a rockstar, a celebrity, a Hilton or a Lohan...now you use such same language as praise? That's not hypocrisy you can believe in...
Seriously though, this bottom of the barrel political discourse that has been on display here (and I'm sorry Mr. Maul but the quotes you have decided to respond to simply proves that. You respond not to serious criticism but the simplest problems to your vision of ideal Republican rule...have at least the fortitude to address actual issues and concerns brought up...) exhibits how out of place this partisan bullshit is on a site like this. It is simply not up to the standard this site has set. It is not insightful or interesting analysis nor does it offer an intriguing take on the RNC. I honestly must ask, what do you, Keith, think has been the benefit of publishing these pieces? Do you think it has provided anything that hasn't been spouted on countless other blogs in the same cliche language elsewhere? I've longed turned to this site for stimulating thought on films, tv, and many other topics but the recent articles have made me question the judgement of the editorial board here if they think they have provided commentary that has anything original or stimulating to say and is up to precedent that this site has set in the past. That's my two cents at least.
drake...Since the speech last night, Obama has raised over $10 Million dollars.
It’s always been the job of the VP candidate to be the “pit bull.” My guess is that Obama would have raised that much anyway had, say, Romney given the same type of red meat speech. But you make an interesting point.
Anonymous said...Did anyone else think "mean cheerleader in high school" while hearing her talk?
Not during her RNC speech. But, the thought did occur when she made her remarks in Ohio after being announced.
robert...Sorry Mr. Maul but the quotes you have decided to respond to simply proves that. You respond not to serious criticism but the simplest problems to your vision of ideal Republican rule...
Bunk.
The point of my pieces, as with Max Winter's for the DNC, was to give a running commentary on the respective conventions I saw it. My reaction to these types of events just naturally gravitated to the pragmatic political calculations that underlie how the GOP assembled its “presentation.” I don't think I was shilling for the GOP in any way and have been pretty candid about their chances this year. My god I compared the RNC to delivering a “still-born”.
You can say it's "poor writing," (a charge I don't know HOW to respond to) but I challenge anyone to read what I said and walk away with the opinion that I was somehow presenting a "vision of ideal Republican rule." THAT charge cannot be demonstrated by what I wrote. Period.
It was pretty clear from your tenor that you hated the pieces (or did I misunderstand "poor film criticism" and "shitty journalism") and questioned whether or not they belonged on this site. That's fine. I'm a big boy and I can take it. However, I don’t think there’s anyway to reply to such a subjective and negative opinion about one’s own work without sounding whiney and defensive. Furthermore, much of your criticism was aimed at the editors of this site whom I don’t presume to speak for. So, don’t take my non-reaction as “proof” of anything. Peace.
THANK you, Rob. There is no reason to think The House Next Door will offer any else but recycled partisan attack lines available 24/7 from every media source.
Robert-
The benefit of publishing this piece (and the DNC pieces as well) is to present varying, individual perspectives on a subject of interest to our writers. Personally speaking, I'm very interested in a forum when writers of different stripes can express themselves. As I said in another post, The House tends toward arts criticism, but is not exclusive to it.
I believe Matt has one more column going up on RNC. And then we're pretty much back to articles on subjects like Shoot the Piano Player and Film Forum's David Lean retrospective, among others.
I have seen some intelligent debate in these threads, as well as some digs along partisan lines (in tenor, it's not so different to me from the passionate argument of cinephiles). I don't regret the choice (which was made mutually with Editor Emeritus Seitz) to run these articles, none of which I felt was explicitly antagonist in tone beyond an expression, by both of the writers, of where their political beliefs tend toward (in the current moment, that alone is enough to get us all heated).
From what I can gather, Matt Maul and I do not share similar perspectives on politics, but I believe he engaged with and expressed his point of view in an intelligent and stimulating way. The House is about engaging with such perspectives and their resultant dialogues, and dialogues (even if they are about partisan subjects) should not be divided along partisan lines.
Apart from the political discussion, I had sort of a fact-checking question I wanted to toss out--it seemed to me, and I could be wrong, that the teleprompters were visible during the RNC, not visible during the DNC. Was this widely noticed? To me it seems indicative of a lower level of technical proficiency, though maybe it was common to both conventions and I just didn't notice in the week before last.
I don't think Romney would've driven the same kind of funds, in part because not nearly as many Dems would've tuned in to watch. He's a known (and boring) commodity (as proven again in his oddball speech -- blame the past 7 years on a liberal White House?)
Dems tuned in to get a good look at the new girl in town, and I think Palin created just the right mix of revulsion and fear that charged up the Democratic base a bit. Neither Romney, Ridge nor (and especially not) Leiberman would've come close to getting that kind of rise.
I want to say that personally, I appreciate the coverage. It's hard to find more level-headed, less partisan opinions on subjects pertaining to politics. While I still find it hard to believe that a thoughtful, non-partisan look at the candidates would lead someone to a McCain/Palin ticket, I have to at least appreciate the process of thought being taken. Too often, politics falls in the 'fan' category of irrational passion/ideology winning out over thoughtful discussion.
Max...I did notice the teleprompters, but honestly can't remember if they were viewable in Denver.
However, I do touch on some other technical flaws I saw at the RNC in a my soon to be posted concluding dispatch.
"The House is about engaging with such perspectives and their resultant dialogues, and dialogues (even if they are about partisan subjects) should not be divided along partisan lines."
That's sounds great, but how exactly is that supposed to happen? It doesn't happen anywhere else, why would it happen here?
My problem is not with the subject matter, but with the quality of debate this subject matter inspires (or fails to inspire).
To compare: So much of the best film discussions here start with a big step back from the obvious subject matter, and look at the big picture, in contexts both moral & historical.
Do we expect this to happen in regards to pieces about the conventions, or election?
"I don't regret the choice (which was made mutually with Editor Emeritus Seitz) to run these articles, none of which I felt was explicitly antagonist in tone beyond an expression, by both of the writers"
Clearly Matt and Keith have put some thought into their decisions. We would expect nothing less. But I for one don't fear antagonism - I fear hackery. If discussions at The House are to concern current efforts of the 2 major parties to snag the prize of the Presidency, than I suggest the conversation has already stooped to a level far below what The House usually produces.
It's like writing about film, and limiting ourselves to discussions of the box office, the advertising campaigns, and the prospective carreers of the producers.
Yes, but digs at Bush, no matter how low, seem always to be welcomed here. I don't remember ever seeing a complaint about "stooping too low" on that count.
A few comments:
First, to Keith: I suspect the negative reaction to these posts would have been tempered a bit if they'd started in covering the Democratic convention. They still would have needed to be more insightful, but there would have been a basis of comparison missing from sticking to only the Republicans.
Then, to Matt:
I don't think there's an inherent problem in covering conventions on this blog, but you haven't done much to get past what we could all have read in the papers. A few points to consider:
1) You say Palin's no Quayle. Why? I think there's a valid basis of comparison, in that each represents the Democratic fear of Republican ideology over competence. So, she can read a nice speech and not stumble when the teleprompter failed. That's not exactly proof she's got more on the ball than Quayle, whose limitations weren't only revealed in the department of language.
2) You say Palin hit a home run, based only on the reaction you saw on TV. But, you never say what she did to deserve such a reaction, other than the fact she didn't seem nervous. Wouldn't it be worth discussing some of the things she actually said? For example, what does it mean that she echoed Guiliani's comment about Obama being a community organizer, as if that was something truly worth deriding?
3) You say Palin took the advice of the book you cite, and answered the most ridiculous charges against her while ignoring the true ones. Which ones are true? Should these be ignored? What does this sort of thing imply for our political system, and is there a difference in the way Democrats use it? I think this home run Palin hit could have used some instant replay analysis to determine if it wasn't a ground rule double.
4) Your paragraph about Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani gives us no more thought than the fact that they were there, which we already knew. Of course, they attacked the Democrats. Tell us why you thought Romney was only fair, what do you mean Huckabee was down to earth, and give us some thoughts about Guiliani's constant trope of 9/11. (As Jon Stewart pointed out, we don't go to see Lynyrd Skynyrd to hear songs from the new album; we want to hear "Freebird.")
5) I'd like to consider the Norma Rae comparison. Palin is a strongly pro-business governor who, as mayor, loved to appear at Wal-Mart grand openings. How does this relate to the struggles to establish unions that Norma Rae went through? And, doesn't quoting Sally Field's Oscar speech point out that Palin is trying on a role, not really appearing as herself? I mean, political conventions are theatrical - why not talk about that aspect?
Your posts have struck me as seeming to be knocked out in half an hour right before you go to bed. There is none of the insight provided routinely on this blog when discussing film and TV. That's why people have reacted so negatively to what you've done here. It's not because we disagree with you, though many of us do. It's that we don't think you've given us anything to argue about.
I think Robert's and Michael's fears are sincere but basically unnecessary. I don’t see the site’s course taking any change for including these topics. This is a site that offers solid commentary from different authors on many different cultural topics and there are no reasons for these events not to be addressed on it. The insight provided by the general commentary from the different authors ranges in depth according to the varying intents and that is a welcome part of it. The site is simply offering diverse commentary and not a full coverage of a political event.
Matt's entry focused on an aspect of the RNC and I think he did so well. I enjoyed reading his perspective and though I had a few unimportant remarks about the outcome of Palin's arguably good moves, my attention was turned to these concerns as I was reading the comments posted.
The simple fact that this site attracts people who are interested in film and art makes it worthwhile addressing these issues for a discussion that might per chance vary a bit from that of sites which are visited by people who do not care about the same things; this in itself should make it interesting for some of its readers. Something that could also make it appealing is that the discussion is a lot lighter (without this having to mean any lack of clever insight) as the coverage is limited to a few commentaries on particular issues within those topics (again, as this is not a full coverage). The focus seems to remain in culture, arts, film, and related issues, while these displeasing (to some) additions are but a small and finite part of the whole.
Of course, I am no authority to speak for the site or its doings. This all simply aims to express my personal views regarding the concerns mentioned and my perspective on a site I have nothing to do with but which I recently discovered and am starting to really appreciate.
Well, thank you Keith for your response in stating your support for these pieces and explaining why you think they are worthwhile. I honestly do appreciate your clarifying of your position and motivation in publishing them.
I can't say I agree wholeheartedly with your assertion that they "engaged with and expressed (their) point of view in an intelligent and stimulating way", and one can witness my response, and Mr. Maul's response to, for example of that. I will stand by what I said before, that the level of criticism on display here has not been up to the high standard this site has presented in the past. Yes I have found articles here that have not been up to the generally stimulating and rich standard before, but I would offer those as execeptions, not the rule.
I feel it is not worthwile to continue a long discussion that would continue to run along parallel paths with no chance of intersection with Matt Maul as we seem both to be letting our partisan opinions stand in the way of an actual discourse, myself as guilty as my interlocutor. I will continue to maintain my assertions that he has not responded to many of the counter arguments to that which he has proposed and believe that these articles lacked a certain form of insight I have come to expect from this site. I am sure my contributions could be discussed in similar language and I am probably as guilty of the crimes of which those I accuse. It is often those closest to us we have the most umbrage with. C'est la vie. Thanks again for your responses though, it is much appreciated.
Steve...1) You say Palin's no Quayle. Why? I think there's a valid basis of comparison...So, she can read a nice speech ...That's not exactly proof she's got more on the ball than Quayle, whose limitations weren't only revealed in the department of language.
As you may recall, Quayle's Senate career (such as his work with Ted Kennedy on the "Job Training Partnership Act of 1986") provided him with a somewhat decent reputation. It wasn't until he was thrust into the spotlight as Bush's VP pick in 1988 and froze up like the proverbial deer in the headlights at his VERY FIRST appearance that his image as a bungler began. It happened in an instant and it was a hole he never could dig himself out of.
You say Palin hit a home run, based only on the reaction you saw on TV. But, you never say what she did to deserve such a reaction
The idea of the "speech" as a flawed indicator of success is a theme I addressed in "Wonk-a Vision." I agreed that ONE speech does not prove anything. However, it was the media pundits who stressed that as a measure AND based on that measure, Palin was viewed quite positively.
THIS JUST IN, Sally Quinn, who slammed Palin in her column, has today repented her original negative column and now joined those voices who think she made a “great” speech.
You say Palin took the advice of the book you cite, and answered the most ridiculous charges against her while ignoring the true ones. Which ones are true? Should these be ignored? What does this sort of thing imply for our political system, and is there a difference in the way Democrats use it? I think this home run Palin hit could have used some instant replay analysis to determine if it wasn't a ground rule double.
Not to split hairs, but I didn't say that they read the book, only that they were acting in a manner consistent with it.
I frankly don't know yet what's "true" or not. That's the point of the "Freak Show" concept. A lot of stuff gets thrown into the mix very quickly. I think the somewhat negative implications this has for our political system is implicit in my post and didn't need further explanation.
As far as the "ground rule double" analogy...I'd only counter the political stakes at this level makes the game of "Home Run Derby" (where the batter either hits it out of the park or strikes out) a better analogy. Palin didn't strike out.
4) Your paragraph about Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani gives us no more thought than the fact that they were there, which we already knew. Of course, they attacked the Democrats. Tell us why you thought Romney was only fair, what do you mean Huckabee was down to earth, and give us some thoughts about Guiliani's constant trope of 9/11. (As Jon Stewart pointed out, we don't go to see Lynyrd Skynyrd to hear songs from the new album; we want to hear "Freebird.")
There's more than one way to skin a cat and I frankly didn't think those three speeches merited more discussion.
5) I'd like to consider the Norma Rae comparison. Palin is a strongly pro-business governor who, as mayor, loved to appear at Wal-Mart grand openings. How does this relate to the struggles to establish unions that Norma Rae went through?
You'd have to ask Chris Matthews, he was the one who made the comparison. I was just citing that as an example of the favorable response her speech seemed to elicit from most of the media intelligentsia. Matthews is clearly no fan of the GOP ticket, so for him to describe Palin as a "Norma Rae" is a surprisingly positive reaction.
And, doesn't quoting Sally Field's Oscar speech point out that Palin is trying on a role, not really appearing as herself? I mean, political conventions are theatrical - why not talk about that aspect?
Res ipsa loquitur. I think my humorous conclusion pointed that out without the need for further illustration. Furthermore, the theatrical nature of these events is a running theme in all of my RNC posts (some more than others).
Your posts have struck me as seeming to be knocked out in half an hour right before you go to bed. There is none of the insight provided routinely on this blog when discussing film and TV.
Well, it took longer than a half an hour :). Seriously, when I discussed this with Keith and Matt Z, the concept, as I understood it, was to do a series of real-time "dispatches", which, by definition, are "written messages sent with speed." I was further encouraged to do the sort of free association riffs that appear in the pieces.
That's why people have reacted so negatively to what you've done here.
Well, by my count there's only about four or five people who reacted negatively. And some of those reactions were from people simply opposed to the notion of doing any political content in The House.
As I said to Robert, what is to be gained by arguing the point of whether or not the writing in my posts are blog-worthy? I'm mostly happy with how they turned out. But, to argue on such a subjective level about one's own work is not necessarily a worthwhile effort. Furthermore, the criticisms I choose NOT to reply to were generally no more specific than "Matt, your writing sucks" To which I could only reply "No, it doesn't".
It's not because we disagree with you, though many of us do. It's that we don't think you've given us anything to argue about.
LOL...based on the comments, I'd have to disagree :)
Robert...I feel it is not worthwhile to continue a long discussion that would continue to run along parallel paths with no chance of intersection with Matt Maul as we seem both to be letting our partisan opinions stand in the way of an actual discourse
First off, you strike me as thoughtful and sincere person. And I'll try to respond in kind. It's clear that you don't care for my writing. That's fair. However, as I say earlier in this comment, the criticism on my pieces were basically no more specific than "Matt's writing is not up to the standards of The House." How would you have me respond beyond acknowledging that your opinion has been heard? It's not as if you said "Matt, you use the word 'like' too often, or you're spelling is bad" or something more tangible to react to.
Max Winter's and I (with Keith and Matt Z's blessing) were trying to present a different "take" on the DNC and RNC. It was definitely a personal reaction to the events in Denver and St. Paul as we absorbed and filtered them. There's more than one way to skin a cat and I'm sure a different writer could have absorbed and filtered them any number of ways. Max and I certainly took somewhat different, yet equally valid approaches.
The one area I will take issue with you concerns partisanship. I challenge you (in a friendly way) to reread my posts/comments, if the thought isn't too sickening :), and cite specific examples of where I let my political views overtly get in the way of a fair discussion. I submit it simply isn't there.
Post a Comment