Paul Ryan accepted the GOP’s nomination for Vice President last night with a scathing attack of the Obama Administration, calling out the policies and record of the President and citing the sum of his administration as a “failed opportunity.”

The Washington Post listed Paul Ryan among the winners last night, along with Condi Rice and the Pauls. Among last nights “losers” were Tim Pawlenty, John Thune and “convention floor dancing.” That sounds like something Jason Wright does at CPAC every year.

As expected, health care is surely looking like an issue that the Republicans intend to hammer in the election cycle.

Comments

  • Anonymous

    I would say that Romney gave a solid, if not rousing, speech. He did what he needed to do.
    I would say Clint stole the show tonight, followed closely by Rubio.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      I agree Troy. I think his 5 point plan is simple, sellable, and a good idea. I loved the line: “President Obama wants to lower the waters in the oceans and heal the earth, I want to help you and your family”.

      I just hope it’s by as little national government as possible.

    • Anonymous

      You really believe Clint stole the show? You must mean in a bad way. I thought Clint’s talking to an empty chair was very uncomfortable to watch. I believe it broke the momentum that had been building up all night long, disrupting the flow and the narrative that was being delivered.

  • Anonymous

    I would say that Romney gave a solid, if not rousing, speech. He did what he needed to do.
    I would say Clint stole the show tonight, followed closely by Rubio.

    • Rusty Shackleford

      I agree Troy. I think his 5 point plan is simple, sellable, and a good idea. I loved the line: “President Obama wants to lower the waters in the oceans and heal the earth, I want to help you and your family”.

      I just hope it’s by as little national government as possible.

    • Anonymous

      You really believe Clint stole the show? You must mean in a bad way. I thought Clint’s talking to an empty chair was very uncomfortable to watch. I believe it broke the momentum that had been building up all night long, disrupting the flow and the narrative that was being delivered.

  • Anonymous

    Paul Ryan was a grand slam winner last night. The media must be flipping out in apoplectic fits today – how can we diminish him? How can we smear him? How can we refute ANYTHING he said? Oh to be a fly on the wall of the NYT.

    • German Observer

      I’m pretty sure the guys at the NYT do not have conferences about the question how to intentionally diminish Ryan. But if they wanted, this is quite an easy task. He is doing it himself. He lies in his acceptence-speech. I think, that should be enough.

      • Jacosta

        German – stop drinking the liberal kool aid that the media is feeding you! It has ALREADY been checked, and re-checked, and checked again and the ONE central point in Ryan’s speech that the media is labeling a “lie” has actually been found out to be honest and true! But, you have your blinders on and won’t see the truth! You are pathetic! What a moron you are for believing the Liberal led-media lie!

        • German Observer

          Jacosta, I hope I can handle my reply without all that personal assaults, though this might happen quite easy by accident as I’m not writing in my mother tongue.

          So, you tell me, that I’m biased and have blinders on? I think its quite obvious that you yourself have some strange glasses on, that makes you perceive things according to your world-view.

          Is it okay (without fetching out my Webster’s) to say a lie is an intentionally wrong or misleading statement? So, Ryan for no.1 liked to rise the impression, Obama had promised to save that plant. Fact check says, that the plant basically was shuot down before he took office. No. 2, Ryan did not say “we” made this proposal and then “we” were sent home (or whatever the exact phrase was), though it is an important fact that he was member of this comission. He then didn’t say that he voted against his own proposal. I don’t know, which sources you use for fact-checking but I guess this is quite obvious intentionally misleading, thus a lie.

          • dw

            GO, the fact checkers have bias, too. See http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/ for the real truth.

          • Anonymous

            Fact checkers are becoming less credible. They are turning into thinly veiled op-ed pieces trying to disguise their opinion or desires (or biases) as truth.
            1. Check here
            2. Check here
            Case in point: Ryan did not “lie” about the closing GM plant. First, the key was that he was emphasizing Oblama’s promise to keep the plant going if they followed his policies. It didn’t work. Second, the plant was still open till April 2009, not shuttered by Dec 2008.
            All the details of Ryan’s alleged “lies” from his speech which are nothing but untrue, false, stupid liberal crying points are HERE
            I did this with 15 minutes of Google checking along with Realclearpolitics.com. You’d think the guys being paid to do this could actually do their job instead of figuring out how to sway the election in Oblama’s favor.

      • Anonymous

        Then you are more naive then I gave you credit for, GO. OF COURSE the liberal meedia collaborates on how to smear conservatives and republicans! Anyone remember journo-list? That’s EXACTLY what they were doing on there. C’mon, GO, leave your bias behind – it’s coloring your perception of reality.

        • German Observer

          Sorry to disappoint you Eddie. Sometimes I’m simply a bit too naive for the real-world.

          Is it too naive to ask for that all of us should leave our biases behind? I mean, its always so surreal that all the black sheep accuse me to be a black sheep.

          btw, I’m still missing your judgement of yesterday’s convention-day.

  • Anonymous

    Paul Ryan was a grand slam winner last night. The media must be flipping out in apoplectic fits today – how can we diminish him? How can we smear him? How can we refute ANYTHING he said? Oh to be a fly on the wall of the NYT.

    • German Observer

      I’m pretty sure the guys at the NYT do not have conferences about the question how to intentionally diminish Ryan. But if they wanted, this is quite an easy task. He is doing it himself. He lies in his acceptence-speech. I think, that should be enough.

      • Jacosta

        German – stop drinking the liberal kool aid that the media is feeding you! It has ALREADY been checked, and re-checked, and checked again and the ONE central point in Ryan’s speech that the media is labeling a “lie” has actually been found out to be honest and true! But, you have your blinders on and won’t see the truth! You are pathetic! What a moron you are for believing the Liberal led-media lie!

        • German Observer

          Jacosta, I hope I can handle my reply without all that personal assaults, though this might happen quite easy by accident as I’m not writing in my mother tongue.

          So, you tell me, that I’m biased and have blinders on? I think its quite obvious that you yourself have some strange glasses on, that makes you perceive things according to your world-view.

          Is it okay (without fetching out my Webster’s) to say a lie is an intentionally wrong or misleading statement? So, Ryan for no.1 liked to rise the impression, Obama had promised to save that plant. Fact check says, that the plant basically was shuot down before he took office. No. 2, Ryan did not say “we” made this proposal and then “we” were sent home (or whatever the exact phrase was), though it is an important fact that he was member of this comission. He then didn’t say that he voted against his own proposal. I don’t know, which sources you use for fact-checking but I guess this is quite obvious intentionally misleading, thus a lie.

          • dw

            GO, the fact checkers have bias, too. See http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/ for the real truth.

          • Anonymous

            Fact checkers are becoming less credible. They are turning into thinly veiled op-ed pieces trying to disguise their opinion or desires (or biases) as truth.
            1. Check here
            2. Check here
            Case in point: Ryan did not “lie” about the closing GM plant. First, the key was that he was emphasizing Oblama’s promise to keep the plant going if they followed his policies. It didn’t work. Second, the plant was still open till April 2009, not shuttered by Dec 2008.
            All the details of Ryan’s alleged “lies” from his speech which are nothing but untrue, false, stupid liberal crying points are HERE
            I did this with 15 minutes of Google checking along with Realclearpolitics.com. You’d think the guys being paid to do this could actually do their job instead of figuring out how to sway the election in Oblama’s favor.

            • Red State Eddie

              The above was from me. Also for more evidence of Ryan being accurate and straightforward (and not lying like all the fruit loop libs accuse):

              This one’s for you, Mr. GO!

      • Anonymous

        Then you are more naive then I gave you credit for, GO. OF COURSE the liberal meedia collaborates on how to smear conservatives and republicans! Anyone remember journo-list? That’s EXACTLY what they were doing on there. C’mon, GO, leave your bias behind – it’s coloring your perception of reality.

        • German Observer

          Sorry to disappoint you Eddie. Sometimes I’m simply a bit too naive for the real-world.

          Is it too naive to ask for that all of us should leave our biases behind? I mean, its always so surreal that all the black sheep accuse me to be a black sheep.

          btw, I’m still missing your judgement of yesterday’s convention-day.

  • German Observer

    Here is a question for us hobby-strategists:

    What is Romneys task for tonight, what does he have to achieve in the first place? Has to be his first goal to win independents? Or the base? Does he have to come along with some specifics or stay as vague and general as he always was so far? Is it more important to appear likable and friendly or powerful and serious? Does he have to blame Obama in the first place or tell hiw he actually would do?

    Putting party-glasses aside, what would we recommend if we were his speech-writers and convention-coaches?

    • Anonymous

      A few suggestions from the great unwashed masses in flyover country, in no particular order:
      1. In crystal clear terms, showcase the difference between Oblama’s policy failures and Romney’s different path to success.
      2. Inspire with the rhetoric of “this fight is not over, America is not done, we can beat this [recession, malaise, etc] together”.
      3. Showcase the “best of Romney” highlights from college to now – I wish Ann had done more of that with the family and personal life stuff.
      4. Highlight the “red meat” issues – jobs, Oblamacare, economy, unemployment, energy &Solyndra, etc.
      He could go 3 hours frankly with all the fertile material from Oblama’s failures.

      • German Observer

        Thanks Eddie for your list.

        Well then, I think we can agree on, that he finally fell somewhat short on all of your points, right? At least thats what I feel.

        He didn’t accomplish your no. 1 for sure, as he didn’t lay out anything about what he plans. The whole speech lacked of his plans and alternatives. That is not a bad thing for a challenger, I think, but I missed a kind of a vision. I feel, that the voters still don’t know, what Romney wants the US to be in 4 or 8 years. The good point he made here was his line at the end, Obama promised you to lowe the Occean, I promise to help your family – this was one of his 3-4 really strong parts

        I think, your no. 2 was met in parts. But he did it with his well-known strange lack of passion. This guy still is so wooden.

        No. 3 again was not really accomplished. As I said, this guy is so robotic, so wooden and controlled, I don’t think that it really worked to humanize him. This whole guy appears like a caricature of a politician. If the makers of a Hollywood-movie think about a typical mediocre politician / president, then they have a guy like Romney in mind. But, what was really, really strong is the explanation about Bain Capital. Told that way, it almost sounds like a nice little grocery shop at the corner and not the business that it is.

        Finally your no 4. Did he do that? I didn’t really see it (though I’m not convinced that this had to be his aim anyway), the red meat wa sout for the day, or used before by other speakers.

        All in all, that is what I observed, he fell flat.

        Priceless was that weird Eastwoof-thing. Don’t they have some professionals to organize this event and have a look over the speeches of the contributors?

        All in all I doubt that the whole convention brought significant support for Romney candidacy.

        • Anonymous

          It was a solid speech. Not close to the oratory we heard four LOOONNNGGG years ago, but a solid speech from a man that looked and sounded presidential. I thought his walk out to the stage was fantastic and I felt his personal story of his family was astounding. An acceptance speech is not a state of the union address.

          • German Observer

            Oh Brian, why can’t you simply admid, that Romney missed a chance? I understand that he is your candidate, I remember, that he was your candidate for quite a long time (as he was my bet quite from the beginning btw).

            But now your candidate has the unique chance to present himself to the American public for 45 minutes – and he holds a solid, boring, non-impressive speech, basically consisting out of phrases heard a 1000 times. All that will be remembered from this convention in a few weeks will be Clint Eastwood running nuts.

            What from a broader perspective is surprising, how badly this whole campaign is managed. I admired team Romney for how cool and based on method they won Iowa and the whole primaries altogether. But in the general they mishandle one thing after the other, culminating now in a “solid” (read: mediocre) speech and a massive distraction from Clint Eastwood.

            • dw

              LOL! GO, you should know by now that Brian bows to the leadership of the GOP establishment, and their choices can do no wrong.

              • Anonymous

                You would think GO would know that by now. He must be a slow learner.

            • Anonymous

              Why am I obligated to admit something for which I do not believe? As I said, I found his personal story to be the best part of the speech and I thought it was a solid but not breathtaking speech. I do not believe he needed to deliver the second coming of the Gettysburg Address. I believe the standard Mitt had to meet was to appear presidential, knowledgeable, and compassionate. I believe he met that standard.

              I hope you are as critical this week when Barry delivers a speech that by any measure of reality will not be anything like the oratory hype and absurd proclamations that sent tingles up our legs four years ago.

            • Anonymous

              Why am I obligated to admit something for which I do not believe? As I said, I found his personal story to be the best part of the speech and I thought it was a solid but not breathtaking speech. I do not believe he needed to deliver the second coming of the Gettysburg Address. I believe the standard Mitt had to meet was to appear presidential, knowledgeable, and compassionate. I believe he met that standard.

              I hope you are as critical this week when Barry delivers a speech that by any measure of reality will not be anything like the oratory hype and absurd proclamations that sent tingles up our legs four years ago.

        • Anonymous

          Having internet issues, so this will be short.
          #1 – Yes, he was clear on the distinctions. Most emphatically when he compared the “slowing of the rising oceans and healing planet” nonsense from 2008 to “I am here to help your family”. Did he give out loads of details? No, but this is not the time for that. Wonky stuff like that will bore people if doled out in large doses.
          #2 – Absolutely slam dunked it. Between him and Ryan the night before, it was an A-Z Encyclopedia Britannica catalogue of major Oblama failures.
          #3 – No, not to the degree I would have liked. But they did offer stories and anecdotes all night long, so it wasn’t like it didn’t appear or wasn’t there.
          #4 – Yes, but really he shied away. But that was strategic. He wasn’t speaking to all the people in the audience. He was speaking to the indies and uncomMITTed’s out in the US watching. He wanted them to hear him compare the differences between him & Oblama, and moreso, wanted to connect with them in an empathetic way – you voted for Oblama, was excited about it then, see the reality now, and are not excited at all but sad. I understand its time to do something about these issues, and we know Oblama, nice guy that he is, is over his head. Vote for me because I can address these issues and I have a plan.
          So all in all, it was a good “3 run home run” speech (not a grand slam like Ryan’s the night before, but still very good) – good for many to walk out of the conference as excited voters (or watching at home) who were concerned about his Massachusetts moderate-ism when they arrived.

  • German Observer

    Here is a question for us hobby-strategists:

    What is Romneys task for tonight, what does he have to achieve in the first place? Has to be his first goal to win independents? Or the base? Does he have to come along with some specifics or stay as vague and general as he always was so far? Is it more important to appear likable and friendly or powerful and serious? Does he have to blame Obama in the first place or tell hiw he actually would do?

    Putting party-glasses aside, what would we recommend if we were his speech-writers and convention-coaches?

    • Anonymous

      A few suggestions from the great unwashed masses in flyover country, in no particular order:
      1. In crystal clear terms, showcase the difference between Oblama’s policy failures and Romney’s different path to success.
      2. Inspire with the rhetoric of “this fight is not over, America is not done, we can beat this [recession, malaise, etc] together”.
      3. Showcase the “best of Romney” highlights from college to now – I wish Ann had done more of that with the family and personal life stuff.
      4. Highlight the “red meat” issues – jobs, Oblamacare, economy, unemployment, energy &Solyndra, etc.
      He could go 3 hours frankly with all the fertile material from Oblama’s failures.

      • German Observer

        Thanks Eddie for your list.

        Well then, I think we can agree on, that he finally fell somewhat short on all of your points, right? At least thats what I feel.

        He didn’t accomplish your no. 1 for sure, as he didn’t lay out anything about what he plans. The whole speech lacked of his plans and alternatives. That is not a bad thing for a challenger, I think, but I missed a kind of a vision. I feel, that the voters still don’t know, what Romney wants the US to be in 4 or 8 years. The good point he made here was his line at the end, Obama promised you to lowe the Occean, I promise to help your family – this was one of his 3-4 really strong parts

        I think, your no. 2 was met in parts. But he did it with his well-known strange lack of passion. This guy still is so wooden.

        No. 3 again was not really accomplished. As I said, this guy is so robotic, so wooden and controlled, I don’t think that it really worked to humanize him. This whole guy appears like a caricature of a politician. If the makers of a Hollywood-movie think about a typical mediocre politician / president, then they have a guy like Romney in mind. But, what was really, really strong is the explanation about Bain Capital. Told that way, it almost sounds like a nice little grocery shop at the corner and not the business that it is.

        Finally your no 4. Did he do that? I didn’t really see it (though I’m not convinced that this had to be his aim anyway), the red meat wa sout for the day, or used before by other speakers.

        All in all, that is what I observed, he fell flat.

        Priceless was that weird Eastwoof-thing. Don’t they have some professionals to organize this event and have a look over the speeches of the contributors?

        All in all I doubt that the whole convention brought significant support for Romney candidacy.

        • Anonymous

          It was a solid speech. Not close to the oratory we heard four LOOONNNGGG years ago, but a solid speech from a man that looked and sounded presidential. I thought his walk out to the stage was fantastic and I felt his personal story of his family was astounding. An acceptance speech is not a state of the union address.

          • German Observer

            Oh Brian, why can’t you simply admid, that Romney missed a chance? I understand that he is your candidate, I remember, that he was your candidate for quite a long time (as he was my bet quite from the beginning btw).

            But now your candidate has the unique chance to present himself to the American public for 45 minutes – and he holds a solid, boring, non-impressive speech, basically consisting out of phrases heard a 1000 times. All that will be remembered from this convention in a few weeks will be Clint Eastwood running nuts.

            What from a broader perspective is surprising, how badly this whole campaign is managed. I admired team Romney for how cool and based on method they won Iowa and the whole primaries altogether. But in the general they mishandle one thing after the other, culminating now in a “solid” (read: mediocre) speech and a massive distraction from Clint Eastwood.

            • dw

              LOL! GO, you should know by now that Brian bows to the leadership of the GOP establishment, and their choices can do no wrong.

              • Anonymous

                You would think GO would know that by now. He must be a slow learner.

            • Anonymous

              Why am I obligated to admit something for which I do not believe? As I said, I found his personal story to be the best part of the speech and I thought it was a solid but not breathtaking speech. I do not believe he needed to deliver the second coming of the Gettysburg Address. I believe the standard Mitt had to meet was to appear presidential, knowledgeable, and compassionate. I believe he met that standard.

              I hope you are as critical this week when Barry delivers a speech that by any measure of reality will not be anything like the oratory hype and absurd proclamations that sent tingles up our legs four years ago.

            • Anonymous

              Why am I obligated to admit something for which I do not believe? As I said, I found his personal story to be the best part of the speech and I thought it was a solid but not breathtaking speech. I do not believe he needed to deliver the second coming of the Gettysburg Address. I believe the standard Mitt had to meet was to appear presidential, knowledgeable, and compassionate. I believe he met that standard.

              I hope you are as critical this week when Barry delivers a speech that by any measure of reality will not be anything like the oratory hype and absurd proclamations that sent tingles up our legs four years ago.

        • Anonymous

          Having internet issues, so this will be short.
          #1 – Yes, he was clear on the distinctions. Most emphatically when he compared the “slowing of the rising oceans and healing planet” nonsense from 2008 to “I am here to help your family”. Did he give out loads of details? No, but this is not the time for that. Wonky stuff like that will bore people if doled out in large doses.
          #2 – Absolutely slam dunked it. Between him and Ryan the night before, it was an A-Z Encyclopedia Britannica catalogue of major Oblama failures.
          #3 – No, not to the degree I would have liked. But they did offer stories and anecdotes all night long, so it wasn’t like it didn’t appear or wasn’t there.
          #4 – Yes, but really he shied away. But that was strategic. He wasn’t speaking to all the people in the audience. He was speaking to the indies and uncomMITTed’s out in the US watching. He wanted them to hear him compare the differences between him & Oblama, and moreso, wanted to connect with them in an empathetic way – you voted for Oblama, was excited about it then, see the reality now, and are not excited at all but sad. I understand its time to do something about these issues, and we know Oblama, nice guy that he is, is over his head. Vote for me because I can address these issues and I have a plan.
          So all in all, it was a good “3 run home run” speech (not a grand slam like Ryan’s the night before, but still very good) – good for many to walk out of the conference as excited voters (or watching at home) who were concerned about his Massachusetts moderate-ism when they arrived.

          • Red State Eddie

            this reply above was from Red State Eddie. Not sure why things all changed from Disqus.

          • German Observer

            RSE, I read your reply before and acknoledged it was yours. I’m just too busy actually for a longer reply, particularily as it takes me longer than you and we are discussing complex topics, which require some craftsmanship using the word. This also and esspecally applys to your replys about Ryan lying and others as well.

            Just to make it short: its weired how different perceptions are sometimes. And I guess both of us may wear some party-coloured glasses. Just for example I can’t agree at all with your no. 1. Romney hardly said anything about what he will do differently. He had this very very short and extremely vague passage about some dubious 5-point-plan and that was it. He basically just said “I’ll do better than Obama”. Your are right, don’t confuse and bore voters with too many details and as I laid out before, this is exactly what I would have advised him to do. A challenger should never be too specific about what he plans to do, and Romney should not do so in particular as everything he may do will be painful cuts in the budget which defenitly would provoke opposition of this whi are affected. But we are far from, that he had laid out some real conceptual differences other than saying “I’m better”.

            As I said, just different percetions.