Michelle Obama received the predictable slobbering praise for her emotionally-driven speech at last night’s GOP Convention. Like Charles Krauthammer, I didn’t buy a line of it.
The best critique I’ve read this morning is from the Daily Caller’s terrific reporter Neil Monro:
The first lady’s speech hit numerous cultural notes that may bolster the president’s support among late-deciding, conflict-averse, non-ideological voters, and only provided hard-to-recognize, or “dog-whistle,” support for many of Obama’s most controversial policies.
Many of the coveted voters are white working-class voters in the Midwest’s battleground states of Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin, who have seen little benefits from Obama’s economic and social policies.
Obama’s ratings among those critical voters has been hit hard by the stalled economy, declining wages and record unemployment.
Those ratings have also been damaged by the president’s progressive social polices, which include support for a continued immigration of low-wage workers, the use of church to fund abortion-related services required by the Obamacare law and a redefinition of marriage to allow single-sex unions.
Obama’s ratings have also been hit hard by Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign. So far, the Republican nominee has spent tens of millions of dollars on ads that highlight Obama’s support for several controversial issues, including a rollback in welfare-to-work rules, massive spending increases and huge deficits.
Her speech downplayed those policies, which were cited in careful language that would not likely be recognized by non-political voters.
Precisely. The dems’ pitches are always long on emotion, and short of facts and details. I would be stunned if 1% of Obamas’ supporters who cite the Lily Ledbetter “Fair Pay Act” have the slightest clue about (1) what that statute actually did and (2) who it really benefits. The answers are (1) changed the statute of limitations in pay discrimination cases to unfairly tilt the balance in favor of plaintiffs, now free to sue after any exculpatory evidence their employers might have used has vanished, and (2) trial lawyers.
What did you think of Mooch’s speech? Was it the first one in her upcoming campaign for the U.S. Senate?