News Did Sara Palin's Speech Turn the Election Around?

  • Thread starter Thread starter castlegates
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around Sarah Palin's convention speech, with mixed reactions regarding its effectiveness and authenticity. Some participants praised her delivery and the speech's impact, noting it energized her campaign and shifted public perception. However, others criticized the reliance on speechwriters, arguing that candidates should express their own views and opinions. This debate highlights the tension between the need for polished public speaking and the desire for genuine representation of a candidate's beliefs. Concerns were raised about the substance of Palin's speech, with claims that it lacked depth and failed to address key issues facing the country. Critics pointed out contradictions in her statements, particularly regarding her record on special needs programs, suggesting that her rhetoric did not align with her actions as governor. The conversation also touched on the broader implications of political messaging and the role of speechwriters in shaping public perception, emphasizing that effective governance requires more than just delivering well-crafted speeches. Overall, the discussion reflects a broader skepticism about political authenticity and the importance of accountability in leadership.
castlegates
She delivered her speech quite well. Half way decent timing, speech writer had some good zingers, and the newborn turned a couple million votes in an instant. All in all ... I was impressed. All the piling on over the last few days just got tossed out the window. We have a race!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As an independent Alaskan, I found myself rolling my eyes a lot
 
I didn't really think her speech was all too good. Who would have a speech writer? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of you as a possible candidate? It should be her views, her opinion, not the writers.
 
Nesiox said:
I didn't really think her speech was all too good. Who would have a speech writer? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of you as a possible candidate? It should be her views, her opinion, not the writers.
Since when does a candidate write their own speech?
 
Can you provide the video link?
 
castlegates said:
Since when does a candidate write their own speech?

I would if I were running. Isn't that what they're suppose to do? They are running for high positions, they should at least assert every situation with their own work. Why else are we voting for them?
 
Nesiox said:
I would if I were running. Isn't that what they're suppose to do? They are running for high positions, they should at least assert every situation with their own work. Why else are we voting for them?
They don't have time to write a speech. A good speech takes a lot of time. Obamas speech was probably worked on for weeks, if not months. At this stage of the process, every word is carefully chosen. Thats also why debates are few, because you can lose an election just by using the wrong word.
 
castlegates said:
Since when does a candidate write their own speech?

Its been too long. They ought to write their own speechs. Maybe we could make it a law or something.
 
  • #10
Voting based on popularity. I want people to mess up, I want people to choke up on a few issues being presented. I want to make sure that who I'm choosing is the best choice, and not a facade. I see the point though, but I disagree with it.
 
  • #11
Nesiox said:
Voting based on popularity. I want people to mess up, I want people to choke up on a few issues being presented. I want to make sure that who I'm choosing is the best choice, and not a facade. I see the point though, but I disagree with it.
I'd like them to write their own speeches too, but how you going to know they wrote it? A speech writers job is to write a speech around the person, so for the most part that speech is the person.

Always keep in mind, this is a popularity contest. It says so in the rules. Not really, but yeah really! Thats what needs to be changed (the constitution).

At any rate - she gave a good speech as far as the majority of americans are concerned IMO.
 
  • #12
The ability to write an uplifting speech is not what governing is about. Let writers write and let leaders lead. If they read it, that means they (claim to) mean it. Besides, it's not what they say that counts, it's what they do. If you really want to know what they will do then don't listen to what they say, look at what they have done.
 
  • #13
castlegates said:
She delivered her speech quite well. Half way decent timing, speech writer had some good zingers, and the newborn turned a couple million votes in an instant. All in all ... I was impressed. All the piling on over the last few days just got tossed out the window. We have a race!
An analysis I heard this morning was that she (and the GOP ticket) don't have a message, so they end up blaming (or bashing) the media, and other people, rather than provide a substantive discussion of issues, like taxes, government, education, national security, trade, . . . . I heard excerpts, and it sounded like the same old empty rhetoric. McCain and Palin sound like they are offering 4 more years of the current situation - especially if they want to cut taxes even more.

Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."

THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."

. . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Here are some of the statements and blatant lies made by Palin and some other Republicans over the past weeks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_fact_check

Very good article!

The #1 reason why I would never be a republican is because of there war on science and it seems like intellect in general. Today you have to sound like a complete retard in order to become nominated for republican president and admitting to reading a book automatically puts you with the rugelach munching "elite". I would never vote for a party that has as prerequisite for its supporters to be ill-informed and clueless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
TheStatutoryApe said:
Its been too long. They ought to write their own speechs. Maybe we could make it a law or something.

Speech writers have been around for over 2000 years; there were professional speech writers even in antique Athens and most of the techniques used today were developed in Greece and later Rome (by e.g. Cicero).
The only modern politician that I know of who (successfully) wrote most of his own speeches is Churchill.
Writing a good speech is very difficult and most politicians would be very bad at it.
 
  • #16
TheStatutoryApe said:
Its been too long. They ought to write their own speechs. Maybe we could make it a law or something.
For what its worth: I saw some political historian discussing this issue: he made the point that one of the reasons speech writers are required in modern times is that political leaders, esp. Presidents while in office, appear and speak in public much, much more often today, up 2-3 times a day every working day on unrelated events, than say one hundred years ago. Its impossible for an individual to maintain that pace w/ any coherency.
 
  • #18
Like all convention speeches, this one was crap. Just a predictable sequence of applause lines, partisan ideology and cheap shots at Obama, without the slightest substance or conviction. A geriatric "maverick" and an inexperienced Alaskan beauty queen running as Incumbents For Change? Looks like a loser to me.
 
  • #19
Remember the 2004 convention speech of then Illinois Sen. Obama was his enabler. No 2004 speech, no star. By the 'the speech writer deserves the credit' logic, speech writer Jon Favreau should be the D. nominee.
 
  • #21
So she seems to lie about the federal earmark spending. That was the only thing that really jumped out at me. That and the fact that she could be one of the few politians who actually has a son in Iraq. I think that if Obama is elected and he is capable of getting the US troops out of Iraq she will likely be very grateful istead of calling Obama a wuss. Or so I would hope.

f95toli said:
Speech writers have been around for over 2000 years; there were professional speech writers even in antique Athens and most of the techniques used today were developed in Greece and later Rome (by e.g. Cicero).
The only modern politician that I know of who (successfully) wrote most of his own speeches is Churchill.
Writing a good speech is very difficult and most politicians would be very bad at it.
There have been plenty of politicians and public speakers that have written their own speechs in the past and most of the more memerable have been written by the person delivering them as far as I know.
The way I see it a speech is supposed to tell you something about the person delivering it. Even if a person just slaps together a bunch of partyline rhetoric it will still tell you something about them due to their choice of rhetoric and wording. Otherwise delivering speeches is really just a lame attempt by politicians to fulfill an obligation for face time with their constituents. I really learned nothing about Palin from that speech that I could not have read elsewhere except that she does a decent job of reading from a teleprompt in front of a crowd.

Edit: Oh and that she doesn't mind openly smearing people who have made it a point to not smear her.
 
  • #22
Evo said:
Except when you read the article he is criticizing her speech. It was a "backhanded" compliment.
No I think his remarks were clear enough: critical on issues, that the Gov. didn't address them, praise for the speech.
 
  • #23
she used to be an independent; for me, the speech came off as identifying herself with her new(er) party and proving herself worthy of republican votes.
 
  • #24
mheslep said:
No I think his remarks were clear enough: critical on issues, that the Gov. didn't address them, praise for the speech.
She didn't write the speech, she just read it, Bush's speechwriter wrote it.
 
  • #25
f95toli said:
The only modern politician that I know of who (successfully) wrote most of his own speeches is Churchill.

Adolf Hitler too. There never was any other guy, not in Germany nor anywhere else, who had enough crap in his mind to write all the stuff he said...
 
  • #26
According to one report on The News Hour [PBS] tonight, the biggest response has been to Palin's reference to the parents of special needs kids, stating that they will have an advocate in the White House.

So, is she to be someone who is all talk and no do, or, is she promising to be like a "tax and spend Democrat" - someone who actually plans to do something and spend some money where there is a qualified need? It is ironic that as soon as she seems to promise some government spending, she gets a rise.

Also, Jon Stewart had Newt Gingrich on tonight, who was apparently an early Palin supporter. The observation offered by Stewart was this: Palin defended her daughters decisions in regards to the baby as "personal decisions". This is a bit ironic coming from someone who who wishes to limit the right to personal choice in these matters.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
my bad. In my previous post I said Palin was an independent. It was actually her husband that was an independent; she has "affiliations" with the independent party, but is not herself independent.

http://www.akip.org/
 
  • #28
Pythagorean said:
As an independent Alaskan, I found myself rolling my eyes a lot

Why? Could you expand on that for our benefit. The rest of us haven't had the exposure to Palin that you obviously have.
 
  • #29
f95toli said:
The only modern politician that I know of who (successfully) wrote most of his own speeches is Churchill.

It is my understanding that Obama solely wrote the 2004 DNC Keynote Address… the one that catapulted him onto the national stage - as mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama under the subhead 2004 U.S. Senate campaign and also sited in this Time Magazine article http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837368,00.html

After he launched his campaign in 2007 he hired speech writers to help him write while he was busy campaigning however he played a major part in the creation of each of his speeches.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Pythagorean said:
As an independent Alaskan, I found myself rolling my eyes a lot

Did you catch the part at beginning of her speech where she spoke of how special needs children would have a “…friend and an advocate in the White House.”? Which is contradictory of her record considering she cut the budget of Special Needs Programs in public schools by over 60%.

Before Elected 2007 http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/07_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf

After Elected 2008 http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf and 2009 http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
syano said:
It is my understanding that Obama solely wrote the 2004 DNC Keynote Address… the one that catapulted him onto the national stage - as mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama under the subhead 2004 U.S. Senate campaign and also sited in this Time Magazine article http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1837368,00.html
Favreau, now full time w/ the campaign, helped the Sen with the 2004 speech.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
syano said:
Did you catch the part at beginning of her speech where she spoke of how special needs children would have a “…friend and an advocate in the White House.”? Which is contradictory of her record considering she cut the budget of Special Needs Programs in public schools by over 60%.
She didn't have a special-needs child back then. She does now. It shows bias towards people who are like her.
 
  • #33
Apparently speeches is all we are going to get out of Sarah Palin until the election.

It looks to me like the Republicans are sequestering her lest the country find out how unqualified and incapable she is to take on responsibility to look out for the interests of all Americans.
 
  • #34
i could not bring myself to listen to her speech, but after hearing it joe biden said roughly that it was an effective attack speech, but omitted mention of any of the problems facing the country like the economy, the war, health care, mortgage crisis.

after hearing the speech, my wife just said "she's mean as a snake".
 
  • #35
syano said:
Did you catch the part at beginning of her speech where she spoke of how special needs children would have a “…friend and an advocate in the White House.”? Which is contradictory of her record considering she cut the budget of Special Needs Programs in public schools by over 60%.

Before Elected 2007 http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/07_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf

After Elected 2008 http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/08_OMB/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf and 2009 http://www.gov.state.ak.us/omb/09_omb/budget/EED/comp2735.pdf

out of whack said:
She didn't have a special-needs child back then. She does now. It shows bias towards people who are like her.
Syano: this conclusion is wrong; Ak spending has increased for these students under Palin almost 12% in '08 over '07. May I ask is this your own conclusion or are you summarizing what you read somewhere, if so where; most importantly why were you inclined to believe it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
wildman said:
Why? Could you expand on that for our benefit. The rest of us haven't had the exposure to Palin that you obviously have.

I doubt it had anything to do with knowing her, she's done nothing interesting for me. She's been associated with standing up to oil companies, but she's also been alleged to have favoritism over offices (nothing too deep, it was like she had her brother-in-law fired after her sister and him divorced or something menial and personal like that). Anyway, standard politician nowadays: scandals and yahoos.

When I heard she was vp, I instantly felt it was a publicity stunt (a young, bright-eyed, bushy-tailed candidate to compete with Obama as a celebrity).

It's the common feeling when you get when watching a politician read a speech that somebody else (with properly homogenized republican values) wrote. When I watch it, I see someone striving for validation more than setting out a plan.
 
  • #37
mheslep said:
May I ask is this your own conclusion...
No, I was summarizing a news blog I read on the Huffington Post.

mheslep said:
... why were you inclined to believe it?
Well, to be honest I was inclined to believe it for two reasons. One, I want Obama to win. And two, Palin lied or severely twisted the truth in other parts of her speech so I figured she could be twisting the truth on this topic as well.
 
  • #38
LowlyPion said:
Apparently speeches is all we are going to get out of Sarah Palin until the election.

It looks to me like the Republicans are sequestering her lest the country find out how unqualified and incapable she is to take on responsibility to look out for the interests of all Americans.
:confused::confused: What exactly do you mean? They were together at a rally just yesterday: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-mccain-palin_N.htm
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
:confused::confused: What exactly do you mean? They were together at a rally just yesterday: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-07-mccain-palin_N.htm

Is she scheduled for Meet the Press?

Think she hasn't been asked? Think they wouldn't let her on?

I think it's clear she is hiding at this point. There is something highly suspicious if she is being kept from public policy discussions, and used as a rally dolly spewing partisan rhetoric and lobbing sound bites. We've had 8 years of this kind of incompetence and the country surely deserves better at this point.

If she is qualified to lead then let her demonstrate that she is in command of the national issues that demand thoughtful attention, that she actually has something to offer, and not simply a neophyte beauty contestant trying to assume office through the tactics of divisiveness.
 
  • #42
McCain Helps Palin Cram For TV Interview
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94407496
Morning Edition, September 9, 2008 · The latest polls show Sarah Palin has boosted John McCain's campaign. McCain now leads among white women, and Palin is more popular among men than among women.

Moving beyond the applause lines from her convention speech, Palin will have her first interview with a network anchor Thursday. The campaign's foreign policy advisers and McCain himself are taking steps to make sure she's prepared.

Well, I'd prefer someone who knows about the policy issues going in this. McCain is tutoring Palin, who is supposed to reflect McCain's views.
 

Similar threads

News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
21
Replies
1K
Views
94K
News Did Bin Laden Win the Afghan Election?
Replies
2
Views
3K
No problem.Meet a Mentor: D H - Get to Know Your Wonderful Mentors Better
Replies
28
Views
8K
News It’s not about having a Sunni or Shia or Kurd or Arab in power
Replies
2
Views
3K
News So, who will win the 2008 election?
Replies
9
Views
3K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
2
Replies
65
Views
10K
Fork in the road, each path leads to possibly more disappointment.
Replies
42
Views
8K
PF Fan Fiction: Mathematicians in Love
Replies
2
Views
4K
Can Tandem Story Writing Reveal Relationship Dynamics?
Replies
20
Views
6K
News Is the Tax-Cut Strategy a Con to Dismantle Government Programs?
Replies
2
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top