Sarah Palin RNC Convention Speech

The Video

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and fellow citizens: I am honored to be considered for the nomination for Vice President of the United States...
I accept the call to help our nominee for president to serve and defend America.
I accept the challenge of a tough fight in this election... against confident opponents ... at a crucial hour for our country.
And I accept the privilege of serving with a man who has come through much harder missions ... and met far graver challenges ... and knows how tough fights are won - the next president of the United States, John S. McCain.
It was just a year ago when all the experts in Washington counted out our nominee because he refused to hedge his commitment to the security of the country he loves.
With their usual certitude, they told us that all was lost - there was no hope for this candidate who said that he would rather lose an election than see his country lose a war.
But the pollsters and pundits overlooked just one thing when they wrote him off.
They overlooked the caliber of the man himself - the determination, resolve, and sheer guts of Senator John McCain. The voters knew better.
And maybe that's because they realize there is a time for politics and a time for leadership ... a time to campaign and a time to put our country first.
Our nominee for president is a true profile in courage, and people like that are hard to come by.
He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.
And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way.
Our son Track is 19.
And one week from tomorrow - September 11th - he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew Kasey also enlisted, and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform. Track is the eldest of our five children.
In our family, it's two boys and three girls in between - my strong and kind-hearted daughters Bristol, Willow, and Piper.
And in April, my husband Todd and I welcomed our littlest one into the world, a perfectly beautiful baby boy named Trig. From the inside, no family ever seems typical.
That's how it is with us.
Our family has the same ups and downs as any other ... the same challenges and the same joys.
Sometimes even the greatest joys bring challenge.
And children with special needs inspire a special love.
To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.
I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House. Todd is a story all by himself.
He's a lifelong commercial fisherman ... a production operator in the oil fields of Alaska's North Slope ... a proud member of the United Steel Workers' Union ... and world champion snow machine racer.
Throw in his Yup'ik Eskimo ancestry, and it all makes for quite a package.
We met in high school, and two decades and five children later he's still my guy. My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town.
And among the many things I owe them is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity.
My parents are here tonight, and I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath. Long ago, a young farmer and habber-dasher from Missouri followed an unlikely path to the vice presidency.
A writer observed: "We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty, sincerity, and dignity." I know just the kind of people that writer had in mind when he praised Harry Truman.
I grew up with those people.
They are the ones who do some of the hardest work in America ... who grow our food, run our factories, and fight our wars.
They love their country, in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America. I had the privilege of living most of my life in a small town.
I was just your average hockey mom, and signed up for the PTA because I wanted to make my kids' public education better.
When I ran for city council, I didn't need focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their families, too.
Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown.
And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a "community organizer," except that you have actual responsibilities. I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't listening.

We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco.
As for my running mate, you can be certain that wherever he goes, and whoever is listening, John McCain is the same man. I'm not a member of the permanent political establishment…
And I've learned quickly, these past few days, that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.
But here's a little news flash for all those reporters and commentators: I'm not going to Washington to seek their good opinion - I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country. Americans expect us to go to Washington for the right reasons, and not just to mingle with the right people.
Politics isn't just a game of clashing parties and competing interests.
The right reason is to challenge the status quo, to serve the common good, and to leave this nation better than we found it.
No one expects us to agree on everything.
But we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.
I pledge to all Americans that I will carry myself in this spirit as vice president of the United States. This was the spirit that brought me to the governor's office, when I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good-ol' boys network.
Sudden and relentless reform never sits well with entrenched interests and power brokers. That's why true reform is so hard to achieve.
But with the support of the citizens of Alaska, we shook things up.
And in short order we put the government of our state back on the side of the people.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.
While I was at it, I got rid of a few things in the governor's office that I didn't believe our citizens should have to pay for.
That luxury jet was over the top. I put it on eBay.
I also drive myself to work.
And I thought we could muddle through without the governor's personal chef - although I've got to admit that sometimes my kids sure miss her. I came to office promising to control spending - by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
Senator McCain also promises to use the power of veto in defense of the public interest - and as a chief executive, I can assure you it works.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.
I suspended the state fuel tax, 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.
If our state wanted a bridge, we'd build it ourselves. When oil and gas prices went up dramatically, and filled up the state treasury, I sent a large share of that revenue back where it belonged - directly to the people of Alaska.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart.
The stakes for our nation could not be higher.
When a hurricane strikes in the Gulf of Mexico, this country should not be so dependent on imported oil that we are forced to draw from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
And families cannot throw away more and more of their paychecks on gas and heating oil.
With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.
To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.
Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems - as if we all didn't know that already.
But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all.
Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more new-clear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources.
We need American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers. I've noticed a pattern with our opponent.
Maybe you have, too.

We've all heard his dramatic speeches before devoted followers.
And there is much to like and admire about our opponent.
But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.
This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.
Victory in Iraq is finally in sight ... he wants to forfeit.
Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions.
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights? Government is too big ... he wants to grow it.
Congress spends too much ... he promises more.
Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.
The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ... raise payroll taxes ... raise investment income taxes ... raise the death tax ... raise business taxes ... and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. My sister Heather and her husband have just built a service station that's now opened for business - like millions of others who run small businesses.
How are they going to be any better off if taxes go up? Or maybe you're trying to keep your job at a plant in Michigan or Ohio ... or create jobs with clean coal from Pennsylvania or West Virginia ... or keep a small farm in the family right here in Minnesota.
How are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy? Here's how I look at the choice Americans face in this election.
In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.
And then there are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.
They're the ones whose names appear on laws and landmark reforms, not just on buttons and banners, or on self-designed presidential seals.
Among politicians, there is the idealism of high-flown speechmaking, in which crowds are stirringly summoned to support great things.
And then there is the idealism of those leaders, like John McCain, who actually do great things. They're the ones who are good for more than talk ... the ones we have always been able to count on to serve and defend America. Senator McCain's record of actual achievement and reform helps explain why so many special interests, lobbyists, and comfortable committee chairmen in Congress have fought the prospect of a McCain presidency - from the primary election of 2000 to this very day.
Our nominee doesn't run with the Washington herd.
He's a man who's there to serve his country, and not just his party.
A leader who's not looking for a fight, but is not afraid of one either. Harry Reid, the Majority Leader of the current do-nothing Senate, not long ago summed up his feelings about our nominee.
He said, quote, "I can't stand John McCain." Ladies and gentlemen, perhaps no accolade we hear this week is better proof that we've chosen the right man. Clearly what the Majority Leader was driving at is that he can't stand up to John McCain. That is only one more reason to take the maverick of the Senate and put him in the White House. My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of "personal discovery." This world of threats and dangers is not just a community, and it doesn't just need an organizer.
And though both Senator Obama and Senator Biden have been going on lately about how they are always, quote, "fighting for you," let us face the matter squarely.
There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you ... in places where winning means survival and defeat means death ... and that man is John McCain. In our day, politicians have readily shared much lesser tales of adversity than the nightmare world in which this man, and others equally brave, served and suffered for their country.
It's a long way from the fear and pain and squalor of a six-by-four cell in Hanoi to the Oval Office.
But if Senator McCain is elected president, that is the journey he will have made.
It's the journey of an upright and honorable man - the kind of fellow whose name you will find on war memorials in small towns across this country, only he was among those who came home.
To the most powerful office on earth, he would bring the compassion that comes from having once been powerless ... the wisdom that comes even to the captives, by the grace of God ... the special confidence of those who have seen evil, and seen how evil is overcome. A fellow prisoner of war, a man named Tom Moe of Lancaster, Ohio, recalls looking through a pin-hole in his cell door as Lieutenant Commander John McCain was led down the hallway, by the guards, day after day.
As the story is told, "When McCain shuffled back from torturous interrogations, he would turn toward Moe's door and flash a grin and thumbs up" - as if to say, "We're going to pull through this." My fellow Americans, that is the kind of man America needs to see us through these next four years.
For a season, a gifted speaker can inspire with his words.
For a lifetime, John McCain has inspired with his deeds.
If character is the measure in this election ... and hope the theme ... and change the goal we share, then I ask you to join our cause. Join our cause and help America elect a great man as the next president of the United States.
Thank you all, and may God bless America.

Giuliani and Huckebee Show the Meaning of "Strait Talk" at the Republican Convention

Georgia on Their Minds

Before Palin took the stage, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the evening's keynote speaker, gave a factually challenged account of how Obama and McCain had responded to the Georgia-Russia conflict.

First, he said that “within hours” McCain had “established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he’ll respond as president. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, ‘We’re all Georgians.’

McCain did release a strongly worded statement on the conflict on Aug. 8, the day reports of violence first surfaced, but he didn’t say, “We’re all Georgians” until four days later.

Giuliani went on to criticize Obama, saying his “first instinct was to create a moral equivalency — that ‘both sides’ should ‘show restraint.’ ”

It’s true Obama’s initial statement said, “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war,” and McCain called on Russia to “unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.”
It’s worth noting, however, that Obama’s words echoed those of White House press secretary Dana Perino, who said on Aug. 8, “we urge restraint on all sides – that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences.” Early reports also said Georgia may have triggered the outbreak of fighting. We’ll leave it to readers to judge which candidate took the right tack.
Giuliani then said Obama “changed his position and suggested that the U.N. Security Council could find a solution. Apparently, none of his 300 advisers told him that Russia has a veto on any U.N. action.” But Obama’s very first statement called for U.N. Security Council action – and so did McCain’s.

Obama, Aug. 8: …the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.

McCain, Aug. 8: The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course.

Apparently, McCain doesn’t share Giuliani’s concern for Russia’s veto power either. In fact, in his third statement on Aug. 11, McCain said: "The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression. … We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.”

Giuliani wrapped up his account by saying, “Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ... well, it looked a lot like John McCain's.” It’s true that Obama’s statements became more forceful – as did McCain's – but Obama was calling for Russia to “stop its bombing campaign” and “withdraw its ground forces from Georgia” in his second statement, as well as his third.

Naked Gun

Giuliani also bungled a reference to McCain's Navy record:

Giuliani: And being a "Top Gun" kind of guy, he became a fighter pilot.

Actually, McCain wasn't a fighter pilot at all, much less "top gun" among that very specialized group. McCain was a bomber pilot, and he himself makes this clear on page 173 of his book "Faith of my Fathers": "I trained exclusively in the A-4 Skyhawk, the small bomber that I would soon fly in combat missions." The aircraft is formally called a "Light Attack Bomber" by Boeing, successor to McDonnell-Douglas, the company that made it. It's true that a few A-4s were flown by the Navy Fighter Weapons School at Miramar, California – but they played the role of "bogies," which the fighter pilots in training were supposed to intercept and shoot down.

Giuliani might be forgiven for his mistake, as he never served in the military himself.

Too Good to Check?

The biggest whopper of the night may have come from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who charged that Palin “got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.” It may sound like a great line, but it’s not true – not even close. Palin garnered 651 votes in 1996 and 909 votes in 1999 in her two races for mayor of Wasilla, according to the city. Biden, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucus, got 79,754 votes in the Democratic primaries.

Palin reeled off a few statements that had a nice cadence, but were light on facts.

Palin:

America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.

We have factual problems with three of these statements.

* Obama's not against producing more energy. In fact, he's not even against drilling for oil any more, within limits. He has a $150 billion clean energy program and says that he wants to develop clean coal technology, advance the next generation of biofuels, prioritize construction of the Alaska gas pipeline (surely a measure Palin agrees with) and take a host of other steps to both conserve energy and produce it, in various forms.

* If Obama's comments about meeting with "terrorist states" are worthy of ridicule, then perhaps so are those of the Bush administration and other Republicans. Obama made his first statement on this in an answer to a video question at a Democratic debate last year, when he said "I would" when asked whether he'd meet "separately, without precondition" in his first year with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Reagan, JFK and other presidents had spoken to the Soviet Union regularly, he noted.

In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama elaborated, saying that he would take an aggressive diplomatic approach – carefully preparing for such meetings, setting a clear agenda, coordinating with U.S. allies, and not conducting the meetings at all unless they were clearly in the U.S. interest. He also stressed he would "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

In recent months, the Bush Administration has been more open to beginning a dialogue with the same nations that it once referred to as the “axis of evil.” In July, the president sent a high-level official to Geneva to sit in on nuclear talks with Iran and authorized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak with North Korean diplomats about ending that country’s nuclear weapons program. Reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times noted the stark contrast between the administration’s current position about meeting with “foes” and its attitude several years ago.

Further, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in May that we should "sit down and talk" with Iran. So did former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in March. As did Sen. Dick Lugar, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as far back as 2006.

* Obama isn't worried, as Palin said, "that someone won't read them their rights" when it comes to suspected terrorists who are detained by the U.S. He does, however, support the right of detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. That's the same position the Supreme Court took in June in a case called Boumediene v. Bush.

Lieberman Misleads on Obama's Record

Obama voted "to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield."
--Joe Lieberman on Tuesday, September 2nd, 2008 in St. Paul, Minn.
If Obama voted against funding the troops, so did Lieberman

Joe Lieberman, the independent senator from Connecticut, alleged in his speech at the Republican National Convention that Sen. Barack Obama had voted to cut off funding for men and women in uniform. Lieberman issued the attack almost as an aside as he praised Sen. John McCain's approach to the war in Iraq.
"When others were silent about the war in Iraq, John McCain had the guts and the judgment to sound the alarm about the mistakes we were making in Iraq," Lieberman said. "When others wanted to retreat in defeat from the field of battle, which would've been a disaster for the U.S.A. - when colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield - John McCain had the courage to stand against the tide of public opinion, advocate the surge, support the surge and because of that, today, America's troops are coming home - thousands of them - and they're coming home in honor!"
Republicans have made similar charges in the past, such as when McCain himself said on Aug. 11, 2008, that Obama "tried to prevent funding for the troops who carried out the surge."

We evaluated that claim here.
To support the charge, the McCain campaign has cited Obama's vote of May 24, 2007, against an appropriations bill that included funding for the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (and passed, 80-14).
So was that a vote "to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield"?
Not primarily.

Obama was fighting at the time for a requirement that President Bush begin to bring the troops home from Iraq. The bill in question did not include such a requirement, and that is why Obama voted against it. Obama said at the time that he wanted to fund the troops, he just didn't want to fund the particular military strategy that the bill would enable. "We must fund our troops," Obama said at the time. "But we owe them something more. We owe them a clear, prudent plan to relieve them of the burden of policing someone else's civil war."
Clearly Obama wanted to provide funding for the troops -- just not the president's military strategy.

If, by voting against funding for a strategy he opposed, Obama voted to "cut off funding for the troops," then so did almost every Republican in the Senate -- and Lieberman himself -- when they voted against a $124-billion appropriations bill on April 26, 2007, that would have funded operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but also required Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. (McCain missed the vote on that bill, which passed 51-46 and was subsequently vetoed by Bush.) In a very narrow sense, yes, those votes were against military funding -- a portion of which goes to equip and pay the troops. So there is a grain of truth to Lieberman's attack. But because it is so misleading -- treating a strategic disagreement as a stand against men and women in uniform -- we find it Barely True.

McCain’s September surprise?

It was “something close to magnificent.”
It was the “best speech by far of the convention,” one that built to a “throat-catching climax.”
It “brought the convention crowd to its feet.”

The gushing reviews could easily have been bestowed upon silver-tongued orators such as Ronald Reagan in 1976, Edward M. Kennedy in ’80, Mario Cuomo in ’84 or Barack Obama in ’04. But these are actually accounts of past convention speeches by a speaker more plodding than gifted: John McCain. When he takes the stage again Thursday to accept the Republican nomination, McCain will be resigned to a potentially unflattering contrast with his rival’s electric performance last week in Denver before 80,000 people. But the Arizona senator’s own track record of delivering boffo convention speeches suggests that nervous Republicans with painful memories of droning deliveries, squinty-eyed glances at teleprompters and hideous green backdrops may not need to be quite so jittery. For weeks, McCain aides have been furiously lowering expectations for his convention speech, painting a portrait of a charisma-averse candidate with all the sizzle of a small-town Rotarian. “McCain is not best on the physicality of speech-giving,” said longtime aide and principal wordsmith Mark Salter. “I’ve got a guy with, for better or for worse, two broken shoulders and a broken leg — he’s a little stiff, ya know,” he said of McCain’s Vietnam War injuries, punctuating his reminder with a wry chuckle.
A look at McCain’s convention history, however, suggests that such doleful expectation setting may be just that — and that his campaign isn’t quite as upset about being compared to Obama’s Invesco Field spectacular as you might think.
McCain’s unexpected choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate has also brought a new energy to delegates gathered here, giving McCain a real opportunity to connect with the emotion and passion of the GOP base.
Through the years, McCain has embraced the varied styles of convention oratory, turning in performances that ranged in tone from attack dog to inspirational warrior-poet to defiant leader. In 1988, he gleefully joined the GOP chorus that was savaging Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis for being clueless when it came to national defense. Dukakis, McCain thundered, “seems to believe that the Trident is a chewing gum, that the B-1 is a vitamin pill and the Midgetman is anyone shorter than he is.”
The then-Massachusetts governor’s veto of a pledge of allegiance law was “outrageous,” McCain declared. But, in a speech that led him to be deemed one of the convention’s “winners” by the Associated Press, McCain also won a standing ovation in New Orleans by recounting his 5½ years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
Similarly, McCain’s 1996 convention speech nominating Bob Dole ultimately did more to boost McCain than to boost Dole. A moving tribute to the World War II veteran’s era of sacrifice delivered with only a few days’ notice, the speech connected the Vietnam generation to that of Dole’s generation with the symbolic reminder that the Kansas senator had worn McCain’s name on a POW bracelet while McCain was imprisoned in Hanoi.
And in 2004, McCain electrified the audience at New York’s Madison Square Garden by denouncing “disingenuous filmmaker” Michael Moore while the creator of “Fahrenheit 9/11” was, unbeknownst to McCain, sitting in the gallery in his role as a guest columnist for USA Today.
McCain’s rising crescendo of a close — “We’re Americans. We’ll never surrender. They will” — was so powerful that his campaign has made it a staple of its videos and ads this year.
This time, though, McCain’s speech must cross a much higher threshold. It’s his convention this time, so he’ll have to incorporate the best elements of his past performances, balancing inspiration, attacks and statesmanship. And his speech will also be judged against the dazzling star turn that Obama took in Denver last week. The Illinois senator self-consciously downplayed his usual rhetorical flourishes in a speech that was closer to a State of the Union address than a barnburner. McCain aides want to avoid the comparison in terms of style and pizazz. But they recognize that the two speeches will inevitably be matched against one another and are eager for the guts of McCain’s message — and his vision for governing — to be contrasted with Obama’s.
Both candidates, said Salter, who is tasked with crafting McCain’s speech, are making “the same central claim: We’re going to change Washington, do things differently and get to work on our country’s problems for a change.” “Whoever wins that argument ultimately probably wins this thing,” Salter contended in a recent interview in his tiny, no-frills office at the campaign’s Arlington, Va., headquarters.
Where the difference comes in — and what McCain is likely to at least hint at in his speech — is in the experience of saying vs. doing. “McCain has had a voluminous record of not just crossing the aisle … but [doing so] on big issues where your party leadership did not want you to or was not happy with your effort to do it,” Salter noted. “McCain has a very long record and the scars to prove it. Obama has nothing.” But what Obama does have are the sort of oratorical chops that could make even McCain’s best performance pale in comparison.
Asked how to compete with Obama on that score, Salter, happy to drop the bar, said with a sigh: “We don’t try.” “They’re two different guys,” he continued, mixing lowered expectations with a weary recognition of the Democrat’s skills. “Obama’s a studied and extremely talented orator. Everybody’s aware of that. … He’s blessed with a near-baritone voice, but his physicality, his movements — it’s very fluid.” But, he added with another laugh, “you might have noticed in our campaign, we are making the argument that that doesn’t qualify you for the presidency.” The goal, therefore, is to not overreach and wind up even more diminished. “I want McCain to be who McCain is.”
If it were the candidate’s choice, that may mean turning the moment into a New Hampshire town hall meeting on steroids, with McCain striding around the Xcel Energy Center stage with a wireless mic in his hand and nary a teleprompter in sight.
But Salter assured that McCain will read from a teleprompter. First, though, “he’ll practice dozens and dozens of times,” Salter said, recalling that before McCain gave his speech to the 2004 convention he practiced with the prompter 15 to 20 times. He likely won’t memorize the speech, but he will have it down to the point where the cadences come naturally. And his language will be plain, even spare, said Salter, who offered a few clues about the rhythm.
Reminded that McCain used a series of two- or three-word commands — “Stay strong. Do not yield. Do not flinch” — to deliver a powerful finish in his 2004 convention speech, Salter suggests such a refrain may be used again. “It’s not his style to do the couplets followed by applause,” he said. “The peroration has to be very simple and direct.”
Without prompting, Salter recalled another such punchy exhortation. In 1993, well before he entered the national spotlight, McCain was asked to give the commencement address at the Naval Academy. “It was a big honor for him,” Salter recalled. “His father had done it, and he really wanted it to be good.” At the end were the same short sentences — “I know you will” — designed to motivate the newly commissioned officers in the Navy and the Marines. “It was very effective for him,” Salter said.
As for the actual content, Salter would not reveal any details but hinted McCain could lay out his vision for how he could fix the broken political process. “You keep it simple: ‘This is what I want to do; this is what I think we need to do,’” he said. “Then you talk and get passionate about a lack of willingness in this town to take these things seriously. ‘Election after election, political class after political class, they all go to Washington, and the place never changes.’ It’s all about being reelected, or becoming a committee chairman, or whatever — and none of this [stuff] gets done.” Important issues aren’t being addressed by a rickety, Cold War-era government because of politically driven inertia, Salter said. “‘Here’s what I’m for; here’s why I’m for it; here’s what I think it will do,’” Salter suggested as a potential theme. “Now why can’t we do it? Because there is no commitment on either side to getting anything done except beating each other in the next election.”
While acknowledging that McCain must “convey statesmanship,” Salter made clear there will be room for highlighting differences. “You also want to convey and we always want to convey that [McCain’s] got life experiences, military experiences, political experiences that are vastly greater than Barack Obama’s and have prepared him to be president in challenging times.”
And, ultimately, the final pitch is not unlike the one Hillary Rodham Clinton offered during the Democratic primary: With McCain, you can have the appealing elements of Obama (change agent) but skip the more worrisome parts (inexperience). It’s the best of both worlds.
Or, as Salter put it: “If you’re a little concerned about the experience factor, here’s your guy — he’s been a changer all his time here.”

The Fishing Foul-up That Was No Felony

Besieged with questions about Sarah Palin's background, John McCain's campaign wants to make one thing emphatically clear: She's not a felon.

In 1993, Palin pleaded no contest to a charge of failing to register as a set gilnet permit holder. Such a license must be obtained in Alaska for commercial fishermen to use the underwater netting frequently designed to catch salmon.
At the time, Palin said she simply forgot to change the nature of her registration from a member of a fishing crew to an actual permit holder.
But the offense was inadvertently entered into an Alaskan district court as a felony.
The issue first arose in 2002 during Palin's gubernatorial race when some opponents seized on the charge. That year, Palin obtained an official letter from the Clerk of the court in Alaska's Third Judicial District.
"I am writing to advise you the data has been corrected in court records and on the state of Alaska's website to reflect your conviction as a violation," Cindy Roque wrote in a letter McCain's campaign shared with Politico.
According to court documents also shared, Palin, whose husband works seasonally as a commercial fisherman, was fined $1,000 and placed on probation for a year pending no further violations of fishing regulations.

The Palin Count Down

To show what a Republican is worth in current politics, it is a pleasure to take the measures of Sarah Palin, who is, according to Republican standards, the most qualified after McCain to be President of the United States of America.
Pointer presents a series of aspects, selected from the media, to see what and how long this image can endure, a count down. This dossier of articles is labeled The Palin COUNT DOWN and you can select the articles apart from the others by selecting that label.

Sarah Palin was named John McCain's vice presidential nominee just three days ago, yet it seems that weeks have passed in terms of the mountains of controversy it has stirred up. An overwhelming amount of negative publicity and sometimes shocking information has come out about her and her relatively short political career.
Choosing Palin has been called alternately a brilliant stroke that reinforces McCain's maverick image and a desperate, irresponsible "Hail Mary" pass in the face of an almost sure defeat in November. The fundamental question being raised: Why Palin? True, her personal narrative has lots of color: former fisherman, NRA hunter, mother of five, small-town mayor, short-term governor of a state with a small population, etc. But that does not qualify her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Anathema to Moderates, Liberals and Progressives
George Lakoff, in an accompanying article, lists some of the issues swirling around Palin:
She is inexperienced, knowing little or nothing about foreign policy or national issues; she is really an anti-feminist, wanting the government to enter women's lives to block abortion, but not wanting the government to guarantee equal pay for equal work, or provide adequate child health coverage, or child care, or early childhood education; she shills for the oil and gas industry on drilling; she denies the scientific truths of global warming and evolution; she misuses her political authority; she opposes sex education and her daughter is pregnant; and, rather than being a maverick, she is on the whole a radical right-wing ideologue.
Part of the shock that many are grappling with: How could a 72-year-old man with bouts of cancer choose someone who appears to be completely unqualified to become president? Thus, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment, although it may be tricky for Democrats to raise these issues without creating some backlash.
As Democratic strategist Paul Begala notes: "It is interesting that McCain passed over Tom Ridge, a decorated combat hero, a Cabinet secretary and the former two-term governor of the large, complex state of Pennsylvania; Mitt Romney, who ran a big state, Massachusetts, a big company, Bain Capital, and a big event, the Olympics; and Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas senator who is knowledgeable about the military, good on television and -- obviously -- a woman."
Not Good in the Polls
Republican pollster Frank Luntz, working with the AARP, did some focus groups of "undecided" voters and found some bad news for John McCain:
They don't like his choice of Sarah Palin for vice president. Only one person said Palin made him more likely to vote for McCain; about half the 25-member group raised their hands when asked if Palin made them less likely to vote for McCain. They had a negative impression of Palin by a 2-1 margin ... a fact that was reinforced when they were given hand-dials and asked to react to Palin's speech at her first appearance with McCain on Friday -- the dials remained totally neutral as Palin went through her heart-warming(?) biography, and only blipped upward when she said she opposed the Bridge to Nowhere -- which wasn't quite the truth, as we now know.
Then there was this, from a woman named Teresa, who went to the Democratic convention as a Hillary delegate and is leaning toward voting for McCain -- obviously the target audience for the Palin pick: "His age didn't really bother me until he picked Palin. What if he dies in office and leaves us with her as president? Also she leans toward the rigid right, and I always thought he was a moderate. ... You know, I change my mind almost every day, but right now I'm wondering where the John McCain I really liked in 2000 went. What happened to the moderate? This John McCain has the look of someone who is being manipulated -- probably by Karl Rove."
A commentator to the article appearing on the Time Magazine blog BlankSlate wrote:
Only someone in the throes of a serious mental condition could have make a pick this astonishing. This focus group confirms the Rasmussen Reports polling that, among undecided voters, the Palin pick makes 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain and 31 percent less likely to vote for McCain. About 59 percent of these undecided voters do not think Palin is qualified to be president. It is a stunt gone terribly amiss. And the hilarious thing is that the right wing really believes that this is going to turn everything around. Amazing, amazing, amazing.
Local Media Unhappy with Palin
Greg Mitchell, the editor of Editor & Publisher, checked out the Alaska newspapers to see how they felt about their governor. He found that they were nervous to say the least:
The pages and Web sites of the two leading papers up there have raised all sorts of issues surrounding Palin, from her ethics problems to general lack of readiness for this big step up. Right now the top story on the Anchorage Daily News Web site looks at new info in what it calls "troopergate" and opens: "Alaska's former commissioner of public safety says Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain's pick to be vice president, personally talked to him on two occasions about a state trooper who was locked in a bitter custody battle with the governor's sister."
A reporter for the Anchorage Daily News, Gregg Erickson, even did an online chat with the Washington Post in which he revealed that Palin's approval rating in the state was not the much-touted 80 percent, but rather 65 percent and sinking -- and that among journalists who followed her, it might be in the "teens." He added: "I have a hard time seeing how her qualifications stack up against the duties and responsibilities of being president."
His paper found a number of leading Republican officeholders in the state who mocked Palin's qualifications. "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?" said Lyda Green, the president of the state senate, a Republican from Palin's hometown of Wasilla. "Look at what she's done to this state. What would she do to the nation?"
And from the editorial in the Anchorage Daily News: "It's stunning that someone with so little national and international experience might be heartbeat away from the presidency."
What's Next?
With the Republican National Convention delayed by Hurricane Gustav's arrival on U.S. shores, there must be lots of discussion and soul-searching going on in Republican circles as to how the Palin candidacy will hold up over the next two months. The biggest question perhaps is whether the McCain inner circle, perhaps in a major concession to the extreme right wing, which hasn't been friendly to McCain, has made a drastic error to woo its support. Or in fact, as some would suggest, McCain is crazy like a fox. Under that scenario, Palin will weather the initial avalanche of negative publicity that paints her far outside of the political mainstream, and she undermines many of McCain's efforts to appear to be the maverick moderate. Palin becomes a strong campaigner, and her extreme positions get lost in her efforts to support McCain.