Choosing the Right Acceptance Speech
By ROBERT RUPP Special to The IntelligencerEditor's note: Robert Rupp, a political historian at West Virginia Wesleyan College in Buckhannon, W.Va., is providing a daily journal of analysis and happenings from the Republican National Convention.
-----
ST. PAUL, Minn. - The acceptance speech should be the highlight of any party convention. It represents the nominee's opportunity to stage a sendoff of the delegates and an introduction to a large national audience.
But a review of past speeches suggest that once again John McCain has established himself as a maverick. For unlike the context of past conventions, there was not much pressure or hype preceding his speech on Thursday.
It was his good fortune that before he even started his speech, he was known to the voters; he and Barack Obama are tied in the polls; and he has his party united. In fact, his only concern prior to taking the stage was that the address might not live up to the speech given Wednesday by vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin.
For most acceptance speeches fall under one of four categories.
- Behind and Comeback - Behind in the polls and still not well known, the presidential nominee uses the acceptance speech to stage a comeback and give a boost to the party and campaign.
In 1988, George H. W. Bush took advantage of low expectations to set the stage to overcome Michael Dukakis' double-digit lead. Memorable quotes included the "1,000 points of light" and "Read my lips."
Four years later, candidate Bill Clinton re-introduced himself at the 1992 Democratic convention as the "Man from Hope" rather than a candidate mired in controversy.
In 2000, Al Gore used his acceptance speech to overcome a reputation of being more competent than compelling. His speech and a well-run convention allowed him to grab the lead in the polls, which he maintained until the first debate.
Those three speeches worked in part because the low expectations of the media and the friendly audience of the party activists.
- Ahead but Not Known - When he gave his acceptance speech in 2004, John Kerry was ahead in the polls, but still unknown to the public. His speech became known as the "Salute and Say Nice" speech. Kerry emphasized his military experience at the start of his speech by saluting and saying "Reporting for duty." Then, because he was ahead in the polls, he did not attack President Bush directly.
His speech reflected the mistaken belief that the public was ready to abandon President Bush.
- Assured and Known - The candidate, usually an incumbent, is ahead in the polls, such as was the case with Ronald Reagan in 1984, Clinton in 1996 and Bush in 2004.
- Overshadowed - Several times an acceptance speech by a presidential nominee was overshadowed by a defeated opponent. This happened in 1976 to Gerald Ford by remarks of Ronald Reagan, in 1980 to Jimmy Carter by Ted Kennedy's speech, and in 1988 to Michael Dukakis by Jesse Jackson's speech.
Each time the party had just finished a hard nomination fight and the opponent who could not get enough delegates at the convention ended up getting all the media attention.
Before he walked to the podium on Thursday, McCain was already known to the electorate. His story and record has already been told. As a senator for 20 years and a presidential candidate in 2000, McCain also is known to the public.
He used his acceptance speech to enhance his reputation as a maverick, but he did not have to establish a reputation as Obama had to do at Denver.
McCain also had the advantage of addressing a recently unified convention. Libertarians on one side and social conservatives on the other had been hesitant supporters of the Arizona senator. But the concerns were eradicated by McCain's selection of Sarah Palin and her enthusiastic reception on Wednesday.
Finally, McCain enjoys the benefit of being tied in most polls - an unexpected position given the state of the economy and low polls of President Bush.
Bush essentially was left out of this year's convention, giving only a short video speech. This is the McCain convention more than a Republican convention.
In a time when 60 percent of the electorate believes the nation is moving in the wrong direction, McCain not only must raise doubts about his opponent, but also must identify himself as the candidate of change.
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|---|---|
|
09-07-08 12:12 PM
|
you call me humorusly funny, without facts, while you trash a union at kroger's. palin's both mr and mrs are union card carriers. mrs palin's great state of alaska got close to 500 million in fedeeral funding along with her home town getting 27 million. those are facts
|
|
Katabatic
|
|
|
09-06-08 10:08 AM
|
Oh Dish...........if it were only that simple !
|
|
mvp1234
|
|
|
09-06-08 8:25 AM
|
destroyallmonstors, the better question to ask is--what is YOUR intense hatred all about? From reading the political posting, it's clear you, cl2, wonderwhy, and Nan have an intense anger with little capacity for facts (wonderwhy is humorously immature). The only monster you destroyed is yourself.
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-05-08 10:24 PM
|
Katabatic--Penicillin? ;)
|
|
Katabatic
|
|
|
09-05-08 9:39 PM
|
There is no cure for liberalism.........like a VD epidemic, we can only contain it, and pray it doesn't spread.
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-05-08 8:41 PM
|
Destroyallmonsters--On the front page? I don't think so.
|
|
Destroyallmonsters
|
|
|
09-05-08 7:53 PM
|
"These articles would have been perfectly acceptable on the editorial page. Not the front page, above the fold." Oh come on, you have no problem about the Pro McCain/Palin stories that litter this rag everyday on the front page. You gotta do better than that.
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-05-08 12:25 PM
|
Georgetwin--I crossed that bridge once. It went nowhere ;) Proceed at your own risk... These articles would have been perfectly acceptable on the editorial page. Not the front page, above the fold.
|
|
Georgetwin
|
|
|
09-05-08 11:48 AM
|
RDish, WHY would someone read a newspaper EVERY DAY that they CLAIM is such a BIASED RAG? Like The New York Slimes and Washington Compost ARE NOT. Do youi want to explain the difference between Editorial, Article and Column or should I?
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-05-08 9:44 AM
|
Destroyallmonsters--I only have a bias (where did you get 'intense hatred'?) against people who use their position to forward an agenda when they are claiming to be unbiased. It looks like I need to buy stock in duct tape if the Democrats lose yet another election. The head exploding will be more enjoyable if I'm making some good capitalist cash from it.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
09-05-08 8:22 AM
|
ditto
|
|
cl26003
|
|
|
09-05-08 7:09 AM
|
I fell asleep mid way through his speech. I felt like someone had given him a valium or something ( or maybe they gave me one). I felt like McCain’s speech was better in ways as far as “not playing the blame game”, but I wasn’t truly convinced to switch my vote for him. He started out praising Bush…… then he made all these references to how messed up his party and Bush have been. There wasn’t any consistentcy and I don’t believe in the changes he spoke of. I am voting for Obama/Biden and God Bless America!!!! Stand up with me, Stand up!!!!
|
|
Destroyallmonsters
|
|
|
09-05-08 1:15 AM
|
What is your intense hatred against academics all about RedDish? So what if the headlines don't fit your skewed reality. Thats what I was told when I and many others pointed out the obvious bias of this rag. Its bad enough this paper has a disclaimer before each of Prof. Rupp's articles, alerting the zombies to his "librul" credentials. Guess what RedDish, your party's convention was a huge hate fest. Each and every speaker at the RNC spouted lie upon lie. Face it, your crusty brand of politics are over.
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-05-08 12:12 AM
|
I will repeat my posting from another thread: I would respectfully like to ask the editors of this paper to halve the pay made to Mr.Rupp for his coverage of the RNC. Compare the headlines; "Preaching to Choir and Congregation" vs. "Clinton Preaches Unity" or "Top Speaker Absent Monday" vs. "What A Change in U.S. Politics" Since Professor Rupp only objectively observed one of two conventions, his pay should be adjusted accordingly.
|