September 02, 2004

I Guess Bush

. . . decided to accept the nomination.

He did a very nice job. He really exceeded expectations with this address.

I didn't happen to mind all the liberal proposals in his domestic policy, because I have such a soft spot in my heart for all that is do-goodism, but it led me to reflect, once more, on how odd it is that Bush is so frequently described as a conservative, or as a conservative extremist. Reagan was a conservative. Bush is just right of center.

It's also worth noting that he's now the master of that infamous smirk, and it doesn't just flash across his face at inappropriate times. Now, when he's delighted with something his eyes light up, and his smiles have extra dimensions to them. I also think he was very effective when he seemed to be on the edge of tears—and that was so much more genuine than the old Clinton-biting-his-lip routine that we've all seen a dozen times or more.

The speech was beautifully written, and stirringly delivered. I simply can't imagine it being any better than it was. Even the protesters were terrific: nice to see the President have to work to keep his thread going. (And, as the husband points out, he may well have had to do this wearing a Kevlar vest, if our buddies in the Secret Service had their way.) And the Secret Service men were wearing baseball hats with their nondescript suits! Because they were in disguise, doncha know.

And the Texas delegates were sooooo cute in their matching outfits with the Lone Star on the breast, waving their ten gallon hats in the air. I swooned.

G.W. can phone in the rest of the campaign if he likes. Tonight he made his case to Middle America ("to the Reagan Democrats," as Rush suggested this morning), and he did it very well.

Sleep well, George. Thanks for making the world a safer place.

UPDATE: Steven Taylor live-blogged it. I was tempted, but had left the laptop upstairs.

UPDATE 2: James Joyner has a roundup of blogger reactions, minus his—since he was out last night and hasn't watched his TiVo yet. (I was wondering what was going on, and figured all the East Coast bloggers were just early-to-bed types.)

Posted by: Attila at 11:36 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

1 In the Command Post chat last night, the consensus was that conservatism is in the execution, not the goals. The President sees education as a long-term investment in the American economy that yields dividends in direct proportion to how much we invest. Education is the key to shoring up the economy as well as solving practically every social problem we have: crime, drug use, poverty, public health. Investing in public education can certainly be construed as a liberal cause, but the way the President's doing it—through accountability and choice—is pure conservatism. Et cetera.

Posted by: Jeff Harrell at September 03, 2004 06:25 AM (UAuME)

2 Hey, don't blame Rush! He was just hopped up on goofballs. He's been in a constant state of ooby-gooby for years, so cut him some slack!

Posted by: Max Edison at September 03, 2004 12:06 PM (Syb+r)

3 He discussed a lot of social programs, some of which sound like they may be expensive. I'm just saying that one side of the couch (me, an Arnold Republican) responded better than the other side of the couch (my husband, a traditional Reagan Republican). Obviously, I want to do some research on what the actual costs are likely to be, and compare that with the costs of not doing these things. I'll be especially interested in reading/hearing what Newt has to say, because he maintains that a lot of our ambitions can be met in a cost-effective fashion (particularly once we get healthcare costs under control).

Posted by: Attila Girl at September 03, 2004 12:24 PM (SuJa4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
26kb generated in CPU 0.1286, elapsed 0.2215 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.2068 seconds, 460 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.