political digression

I’m a week into classes now — far along enough to be slightly behind in my reading (though not as much as I’ve been at this point many times in the past, so that’s progress), but not really far enough to have spent much time looking at campaign ’04 through a newly enlightened lens, I’d say.

Still, I feel compelled to say something about President Bush’s acceptance speech last Thursday night at the Republican National Convention in New York City. I’ve been struck by two conversations I’ve had the last few days with a couple of others who caught the speech — namely, from how our perceptions of the speech differ.

I didn’t catch the speech on live TV, but I did record it (thank you ReplayTV!). Sunday after I woke up from my post-airport-trip nap, I watched the speech … and I have to say, even given my less-than-enthusiastic feelings for Bush in general, his speech was good. Quite good.

Part of that, I think, comes from something mentioned in a New York Times news article: “Throughout his speech Mr. Bush appeared rested, comfortable and confident.” How many times have we seen W on TV smirking or sporting his deer-in-the-headlights look, appearing to be uncomfortable with talking to reporters or into cameras? He had an aura of comfort and strength about him last Thursday night, though. I was surprised.

This theory of mine — that his speech was good because he seemed infinitely more comfortable than usual — grew stronger when Gary told me he didn’t think the speech was all that special, but that he’d listened to pieces on the radio rather than watching it on TV. (And, of course, I was reminded of the infamous Kennedy-Nixon debate where something similar occurred.)

What I did notice about George’s speech, though — beyond the comfort factor, was his unusually moderate ideas about where to take the country in the future. Predictably hawkish on national security, W was actually rather moderate — or, dare I say, liberal? — on social issues. He recommended providing more funding for community colleges and mentioned setting up new rural health centers. Since when does Bush, the quintessential conservative, want to set up and fund new public health measures?

(But, perhaps that’s the kicker — and like his No Child Left Behind failure, he wants to put the legislation in place and just underfund it? Hmm.)

I didn’t read any commentary or analysis of W’s speech until after I’d talked to Gary and then last night to David (who, incidentally, seems to have fairly identical feelings as mine about W in general) … but when David said he thought the speech was good, too, I thought, “There has to be something to this.”

One other slightly disturbing note I want to throw out there: the NY Times reported Sept. 3 that Fox News dominated convention coverage, outdoing all other sources including the three major networks. (CNN and PBS did better during the Democratic National Convention.) I think it reiterates what we increasingly believe to be true: interested and involved Americans more often than not rely upon clearly biased coverage of their news (Fox’s “fair and balanced” tagline is kinda like stopping at a yellow light — a nice idea, in that fairytale sort of way).