Second of a series of commentaries on the Republican National Convention 2012 currently underway at Tampa Bay.


Yesterday’s GOP Convention session was definitely one of the most memorable in living history, mainly due to the high-profile speakers who took the stage, including Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose speeches surely managed to appeal to the most conservative of the party’s grassroots. Yet the show centered around the new boy on the block: the Republican pride of the moment Paul Ryan, whose keynote acceptance speech raised the bar and seriously lowered all remaining hopes Democrats had that this convention will not be a game-changer after all. Quite the contrary, Ryan’s speech defined the issues and image the Republican campaign will be taking from now on.


A note on Rice’s speech:

Condoleezza Rice appeared to Republicans as a surprisingly reinvigorating figure, managing to disconnect herself from the rest of the Bush administration and injecting her audience with a sense of national pride typical of the Republican base.

By recounting the horrific tale of 9/11, of which she had to carry an enormous burden, she immediately set the tone for what was to be a speech focused around Obama’s lack of clear-cut interventionism, which, in her own words is leading everyone to ask “where does America stand” in a world dominated by the Arab Spring and the growing threat of Iran. One couldn’t but see the difference being pointed out between her strong, leading, quasi-menacing approach, and her counterpart Clinton’s softer, more reluctant stance, based on dialogue and soft-core diplomacy, rather than more tangible force. “We do no not have a choice,” Rice said to a raging applause, “we cannot be reluctant to lead, and we cannot lead from behind.”

Therefore, by portraying America as a force which is currently failing to guarantee stability and convey trust, Rice also accused the Obama administration of being ungenerous with the global community; of not fulfilling its role as the defender of peace around the world: an argument which surely sounded sweet to the ears of the hard-core Republican. Moreover, she attacked Obama’s government for its lack of focus on free-trade agreements and pooling further into energy resources, along with its constant borrowing which, she declared, is undermining the American dream: the “idea” that “it doesn’t matter where you came from; it matters where you’re going.”

The passionate address struck a chord with unwavering party supporters; something neither Paul Ryan nor Mitt Romney can afford to do in such an open manner, aware of the fact that they need to garner as much independent voters as they can possibly get.



Ryan’s Power:

Paul Ryan’s speech, on the other hand was a manifestation of the new breed of Republican politicians, mainly steered towards appealing to the younger generations, floaters, and fringe party members. By constantly attacking the government’s economic, health, and social policies, Ryan sought out to declare that if you’re anti-Obama, then you should join him and his team.

 It was this consolidation of a movement against the current administration which was at the heart of Paul Ryan’s address. Arguably the greatest chance he will get to lay out his future vision for America’s economy, the speech basically promised a future for the middle class, average American, whose hard work and painstaking sacrifices have paid only in an economic recovery which has failed to provide a breath of air and the strength to rise up again. Aware of the success his running mate already got from focusing on Obama’s economic failures, Paul Ryan centered on these same issues, confirming that they will be the game-changers of this electoral campaign. His assuring tone clearly aimed at inspiring undecided voters with the much-needed trust the Romney campaign needs. Following Anne Romney’s “you can trust Mitt” appeal, here we see his running mate saying to us that “the man for the job is Governor Mitt Romney.”

The focus on the “Obama isn’t working” theme was constantly evident throughout. Ryan accused Obama of “throwing away money”, after promising a plan to revive American economy- a plan which, according to Ryan, left millions unsatisfied, many of them unemployed. The change which was promised was a delusional attempt at fixing the economy: an attempt which fatally failed. It’s the victims of this broken promise who were being targeted by Ryan’s speech when he asked what will make four other years under Obama any different from his present term. In posing this question, he proved that his line-of-thought is in sync with that of the American economic community, with The Economist today coming up with a very similar question: “just what would you do with another four years?”

When turning to the health care reform, Ryan mentioned a point which is essential towards creating the anti-Obama effort I mentioned earlier. It’s this issue which has sparked a lot of people to symphatise with Romney, who, by choosing a running mate determined to put an end to Obamacare, provided an alternative proposal: strengthening Medicare. He focused on the negative effects the reform is having on the elderly, and once more renewed his commitment towards his plan of offering a choice of government-approved packages to be provided by insurance brokers. Furthermore, by describing Medicare as “a promise”, he completely dismissed all uncertainties being put forward that a Romney administration will tamper with the system, further assuring his audience.

His last major point regarded small enterprises, and here, he confirmed the pro-business attitude of Romney’s policies. This may just be the main voter stronghold, and Ryan wanted to make sure that he fully taps into it. “Being a successful business man is a good thing,” he declared, attempting to turn Romney’s image to a positive role-model which appeals to all middle-class citizens.

However, it was not a speech without its gravely misleading assertions. When speaking about Obamacare, he declared that seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars were “funneled out” of Medicare, while not taking into account that he himself included such budget cuts during his two years of chairmanship of the House Budget Committee. When attacking the stimulus plan, Ryan did not mention that he himself had requested such funds for two Wisconsin companies. Furthermore, the mentioning of the closure of the Jamestown GP plant, allegedly “less than a year” following Obama’s electoral victory is not true at all: that plan is proven to have been shut down during the Bush administration, six months before Obama’s rise to power. This undoubtedly hurts the overall effect of this speech, but who will be those checking the facts? Surely Paul Ryan’s target audience yesterday did not care about the numbers, but on whether or not the Republican alternative is a valid substitute to Obama’s failures.

Whether Ryan has been successful has still to be seen. However, what his speech surely did was to convey a loud and clear message that the Romney team has a plan, and that it’s fully committed to defend and put it into action. It also raised the bar for what surely will be an incredibly spectacular show of support as presidential candidate Mitt Romney accepts his nomination and sets out to battle Obama for the coveted seat in the Oval Office.