If what's being said is to be believed, the speakers aren't reading from a script devised by Team Romney.    So someone going "off point" shouldn't be big shocker.   I imagine there's someone getting his *** chewed for letting NM guy speak about Fed money when the theme is "We built this".   I guess he wasn't properly vetted or just went renegade.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2012 8:19:00 AM (view original):
Well, I'd hardly expect Santorum or Christie to be cheerleaders for Team Romney.   They have their own careers and aspirations.   Both discussed issues important to the Republican party, issues Romney supports, and endorsed Romney at the end of their speech.    To me, it would have come off as extremely phoney if both spent 10-15 minutes recapping how great Romney is.

As for Ann Romney(I didn't see her portion), she's not a public speaker.   She raised 5 children(probably with 10 nannies) and rides horses.   If one expects her to be Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton, I think you're expecting too much.   Both of those women want/like the spotlight.   We don't know that to be true of AR.   In fact, it's been said before that every time she opens her mouth, she hurts his campaign. 

Ann Romney did just as well as Michelle Obama did in 2008. There is only so much you can do with "Why I think my husband is great".

Posted by The Taint on 8/29/2012 11:30:00 AM (view original):

Posted by mchalesarmy on 8/29/2012 10:45:00 AM (view original):
A keynote in literature, music, or public speaking establishes the principal underlying theme


The Prinipal underlying theme is how much better their states are doing.
 
I don't see the confusing part.

The underlying theme of the convention is Mitt Romney and what he will do to improve the state of the union. When some of the speakers, including the keynote speaker barely mention the man it makes you wonder how much they really believe in Mitt. Looked like a stump for 2016 to me. If you look around at reactions from "pundits" around the country, you will see a lot of them agree.

Actually the point of this night was "Freedom good, Euro-Socialism Bad".

During a time of economic downturn we can see that some areas are doing better than others. Usually Republican areas.

I think all the speechs hit the nail on the head.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2012 12:29:00 PM (view original):
If what's being said is to be believed, the speakers aren't reading from a script devised by Team Romney.    So someone going "off point" shouldn't be big shocker.   I imagine there's someone getting his *** chewed for letting NM guy speak about Fed money when the theme is "We built this".   I guess he wasn't properly vetted or just went renegade.

Right before her speech, Bob Schieffer (CBS news) pointed out that Ann Romney typically writes her own speeches and prefers to give them without a teleprompter.  But "Team Romney" insisted they they she a speech writer and a teleprompter so that they could control her time on stage.  Then she went out and gave a horrible speech that did little service to her as a potential First Lady, and even less to women in general.  Not sure how that's going to help the Republicans sway those women voters who are already on the fence to their side.  Unless they just don't care.

As my wife pointed out immediately after the speech, the first half of AR's speech pointed out how important the role of a wife/mother is in supporting a husband and family, then she spent the second half of her speech basically saying that everything Mitt did, he did it all by himself wih no help at all.  A mixed message that made me wonder what the point of putting her on the stage was.

I wasn't referring to AR in that post.  That was in response to Taint mentioning a NM guy talking about the Feds not giving his state enough money.

I have no doubt that AR used a Team Romney speechwriter.   She may have said "But I need to say this" and the speech was altered but I don't think she was freelancing out there.  

FWIW, I think the reason for her on stage was A) it's expected B) to diffuse the belief that Mitt is a business robot with no feelings.  Or, at the very least, his loving wife can persuade him to considers the human side before acting. 

Well at least you waited almost 3 pages in before resorting to funny pictures.

Too bad an intelligent discussion isn't more appealing to you.

And what does Paul Ryan have to do with this?

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2012 7:01:00 AM (view original):
I watched the RNC on CNN.   I have to be honest, they were very fair in their reporting.   They brought in Angry Black Man to grill Artur Davis and hit a few liberal talking points but, overall, they were very fair.

Assuming FOX does the same coverage at the DNC, I don't see them being quite as fair.

Last night, CNN wasn't quite as fair with their reporting.    Seemed kinda nitpicky and confrontational.

I skipped last night, probably tonight also. Raiders/sea chickens in the most meaningless game of the year will trump it. Gotta see T. Pryor get at it!

Posted by swamphawk22 on 8/29/2012 4:33:00 PM (view original):
And what does Paul Ryan have to do with this?

What does he have to do with the RNC? Hmmmmmm, that should be an easy one, even for you.

I only watched a little of it last night.   Saw Ryan and Rice. 

CNN had some dude screaming in the faces of onlookers asking what they thought of Ryan.  That seemed way over the top.   Blitzer and the chick were quick to say "I think the fact-checkers will dispute much of what Ryan said."     But they did admit that he motivated his captive audience and generally did a good job of eliciting applause at his key points.

I think you're referring to the hispanic conservative guy for CNN. He was a Romney advisor in '08.

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/29/2012 12:29:00 PM (view original):
If what's being said is to be believed, the speakers aren't reading from a script devised by Team Romney.    So someone going "off point" shouldn't be big shocker.   I imagine there's someone getting his *** chewed for letting NM guy speak about Fed money when the theme is "We built this".   I guess he wasn't properly vetted or just went renegade.

I couldn't get past, "If what's being said is to be believed," without laughing.