Ryan’s Speech at the GOP Convention

Thursday, August 30, AD 2012

College graduates should not have to live out their 20s in their childhood bedrooms, staring up at fading Obama posters and wondering when they can move out and get going with life.

Paul Ryan

 

 

 

I have been a connoisseur of oratory, especially political oratory, since I became old enough to understand that a speech was being given.  Last night’s speech by Paul Ryan was truly remarkable.   How was it remarkable?  Let me count the ways.

1.  It is difficult to deliver an attack speech with pleasant good humor, and Ryan did just that, and the good nature in which the indictment of the Obama administration was delivered made it all the more effective.

2.  The speech was delivered in a low-key style with Ryan hardly raising his voice.  The temptation, when you get in front of a vast live audience, like a convention, full of partisans, is to go “hot” and deliver a full-throated roaring speech.  Ryan did not make that mistake.  He understood who his real audience was:  uncommitted voters watching on television or the internet, and he presented his arguments coolly and non-confrontationally.

3.  He allowed his personal affability to shine through.  Many politicians find this difficult to do.  Rick Santorum, who I supported in the primaries, is a very likable and witty man off the stump.  He often found this hard to convey in his speeches.  Ryan does this effortlessly.

4.  Ryan dealt deftly with the issue of Romney being a Mormon:

Mitt and I also go to different churches. But in any church, the best kind of preaching is done by example. And I’ve been watching that example. The man who will accept your nomination tomorrow is prayerful and faithful and honorable. Not only a defender of marriage, he offers an example of marriage at its best. Not only a fine businessman, he’s a fine man, worthy of leading this optimistic and good-hearted country.

Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life.

Note the reference to “Lord of Life”.  This is not a man who is a sunshine pro-lifer.

5.  Ryan got nicely to what this election is truly about on a philosophical level:   sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government.

6.   Ryan hammered away at the poor economy and asked a question that Obama simply can’t answer:  Without a change in leadership, why would the next four years be any different from the last four years?

 

 

Here is the text of the speech:

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Ryan’s Speech at the GOP Convention

  • I am anxious to see how Romney follows Ryan and Christie. What, in your opinion, does he need to say and how does he need to deliver it?

  • Romney needs to come across ultra competent and optimistic. I think most of the nation understands that Obama cannot fix the economy, but they are skeptical that Romney can do better. He needs to convince them that he can.

    Romney will have the usual advantage of most Republican candidates in that much of the mainstream press has given a fairly distorted view of him. Just showing up without horns and a tail will give him a boost, as it does most Republican presidential candidates.

    Romney should echo what Ryan said: does anyone, outside of rabid Democrat partisans, really believe that if Obama remains in office that his economic policies will do any better in the next four years than they have in the last four? Time for something new.

    I don’t view Romney’s task as very difficult. He has never been much of an orator, but he has improved over the campaign. This speech doesn’t require the touch of genius that Ryan’s speech had. A solid, workmanlike effort, obviously heartfelt, should be sufficient.

  • It was amazing and it made me cry (in a good way). It had everything in it that I needed to hear. It made me proud to be an American and a Catholic. For here is a man who speaks to my heart and shares in the same values that are important to me as an American and as a Catholic. At no time in recent history is an election so important. May God bless Paul Ryan and bring to completion what He has began.

  • I agree with your assessment of Ryan’s speech last night. I was impressed with most of it, and I did appreciate the “Lord of life” paragraph, but I was hoping for something a little more explicit about the life issues. It seems that all the big speeches so far have really downplayed the life issues. I noted particularly Rice’s line about school choice for underprivileged neighborhoods being THE social justice issue of our generation. (I’m completely in favor of school choice, and I think vouchers are the way to do it, but c’mon, this issue, important as it is, is not on the same level of significance as abortion, ESCR, and same-sex “marriage.”)

  • The atheist has removed God’s name “I AM” from the vocabulary of American citizens but the atheist has not and cannot remove God’s Name from “WE, the people…”
    Paul Ryan did emphasize “our founding principles”
    Now, I am weeping tears of joy.

  • I liked the comment “This is not a man who is a sundhine pro-lifer”. I agree with the comment. I wish it also applied to the man at the top of the ticket, but it doesn’t. Romney was not pro-life prior to 2008. I would be happy if only half the things the NARAL crowd were accusing him of were true. I will be voting for a third party this election.

  • “I will be voting for a third party this election.”

    I have called Romney the weathervane for his switches on issues. However, I have no doubt that if he is elected he will oppose abortion in his actions. To do otherwise would be political suicide. Additionally, he will likely have a Congress that will be controlled by the Republicans. This will ensure any deviation from the pro-life cause would be met with legislative death in Congress. Plus electing Romney puts Paul Ryan on the path to the White House and I think every pro-lifer should find that a cheerful prospect.

  • Good speech by Paul Ryan. Pity the third party purist voters – just like the Abolitionists of yester-century, they won’t work for the common good no matter what.

  • Don – I don’t know if that last sentence is true. Being nominated increased his profile already, but would it be raised more by a win than a loss? My bet is yes, but I wouldn’t bet too much. Anyway, at his age, he could be VP for two terms, head of the RNC for four years, go back and get his law degree, then put in six years in the Senate and he’d still be younger than Biden is today. Of course by then we’ll be governed by telepathic dolphins and a giant computer. I hate making political predictions.

  • 5. Ryan got nicely to what this election is truly about on a philosophical level: sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government.

    Something you would think every American would embrace. It’s right there in the Declaration! Would you believe there are some who are actually offended by such a notion?
    http://www.therightscoop.com/toure-paul-ryans-comment-that-our-rights-come-from-god-and-nature-is-offensive/

    Liberalism is truly a mental disorder.

  • We are certain that Obama will nominate abortion-fanatic justices.

    If Obama is re-elected it could be by third party votes, which will have proven equivalent to voting for abortion and Obama.

    I am not convinced that Romney is lying. Let’s give him a chance. He won’t get a second term if he, uncertain, stabs us in the back.

    Again, why are we making the perfect the enemy of the good? There is nobody that is perfect in the World. God alone is good and perfect. Jesus says as much in the Gospels. [Matt. 19:16-30; Mark 10:17-31; Luke 18:19-30.]

    Eight years for Romney; eight years for Ryan!

  • “Of course by then we’ll be governed by telepathic dolphins and a giant computer.”

    They could hardly do a worse job than Obama! 🙂

  • “Pity the third party purist voters – just like the Abolitionists of yester-century, they won’t work for the common good no matter what.”

    Absolutely untrue.

    Unless you’d like to explain to me how my decision this year not to support Mitt Romney is translated into a an overall refusal on my part to “work for the common good no matter what.” Be prepared to discuss the entirety of my 25+ year political history, including the time I served in elective office.

    I’m anxious to hear all about my falure to work for the common good “no matter what”.

  • I suppose there’s that one adjective in your assessment – “purist” – that might exclude me from your calculus. I don’t believe myself to be a “purist” voter, although I consider myself “pure” enough that I’m not about to vote for Mitt Romney.

    I will give that reading to your statement and assume that it therefore doesn’t apply to my decision to vote 3rd party this year.

  • Jay, I know nothing about you and so won’t judge. But the fact that you got so offended says much about the truth of my statement. And I won’t argue the point other than to say that if Obama wins, it will be because of purists like you. But maybe that has to happen in order to teach this country a lesson.

  • BTW, interesting focus on alcohol in the right side margin of Pro Ecclessia.

  • Don,

    “I have called Romney the weathervane for his switches on issues. However, I have no doubt that if he is elected he will oppose abortion in his actions. To do otherwise would be political suicide.”

    I concur with this analysis. Romney has no choice but to govern as a pro-life president. He would stand no chance of reelection if he failed to do so.

    I wish more people would realize that personal feelings and even personal positions must always take a backseat to broader political considerations.

  • How does allowing Obama to wield four more years advance the “common good”?

    If Obama wins because of third party votes splitting away from Romney, Obama will have four years to destroy everything. Do you think he is inept? No. This economic malaise is part of the conscious wrecking of the private economy.

    Because desperate, hungry people are easier to control.

    Is that this what mean by “common good”? Equality of destitution.

  • “Jay, I know nothing about you and so won’t judge”

    That is enough back and forth with Jay Paul. Jay is an old friend of mine and of this blog, and he is a firm pro-lifer. He and I differ regarding voting for Romney, but I know he is motivated by the highest principle and I respect his decision.

  • I wish that this convention had been more pro-life too. But Romney is a moderate on the issue, so the convention probably reflects him accurately. Moderates don’t like to talk about abortion. Now, the interesting thing is that the Democratic convention is going to talk about abortion a lot, from the looks of the speakers. That’s probably going to scare off moderates, who don’t like any strong views about the subject. A chant of “my body, my choice” led by a NARAL representative would only make Obama look extreme, and it would turn off some of the very people who wouldn’t vote for an “extreme” pro-lifer. The Republican convention makes the “war on women” a harder sell.

    Yeah, I know, in a better world pro-lifers wouldn’t have to worry about such tactics.

  • Completely agree with your summation Don.
    The last few afternoons around 2 pm. our time, I have been going around to a mate’s place (also a staunch catholic) and watching the RNC – he has Sky TV, I don’t :-).
    Ryan was very impressive – he continued with his style that I have come to recognise in the few speaches I have seen him make. Just can’t wait till he debates with Joe “the clown” Biden – Ryan will wipe the floor with him.
    I have been very impressed with all the speaches i have watched – the strong oratory of Chris Christie, and the beauty and eloquence of Anne Romney. Also watched Condaleeza Rice yesterday – what a woman. In fact all the women have been most impressive, including the Hispanic govenor? from New Mexico, and just watched Mia Love’s video clip. What a way to defeat Obama’s claim that the Repubs hate women.
    So I’m off to Chas Kirkham’s place in an hour or so – I believe Clint Eastwood is speaking (have always like Clint) and then for Mitt Romney to give his speach. I haven’t heard enough of him to make a comment on his oratorical skills, but he certainly has that resonating type of voice which tends to demand attention. Hope he does well.
    Also hope he romps into the White House, with Ryan to keep him on the right path. 🙂

  • I guess I most be a third party purist. I voted for Mccain in ’08 and had an overwhelming urge to take a long, hot shower when I got home from the poll.
    Seriously, though, I get the whole lesser of two evils, perfect the enemy of the good, thing. Living in Wisconsin, an evenly split swing state, makes my decision that much more important.
    I think that abortion is the great evil of our time. I could handle a “moderate” on the issue (how you hold a moderate view on the killing of children is beyond my ken) like Mccain who at least has been consistant over time. I could handle a candidate who has had a true change of heart. Reagan was such a man. He changed his tune on economic issues and would gladly tell all who would listen why he changed them. What I can’t tolerate is a candidate and a party that plays lip service to the pro-life community because they know that we won’t vote for the alternative.
    Romney has given no explanation for his changing abortion views other than “I made a mistake”. I have changed my views on abortion, and I could talk to you till your ears fell off about that and the other changes that Christ has wrought in my life.
    I will vote Republican for the state and local officials this election, but not for Romney.
    The re-election of Obama is a very bad thing, but it is not the worst thing. The changes that this country needs will not come from its politicians. It must come from God, through the people.
    May God raise a Wilburforce to lead our nation to true repentance, not the politically expedient kind.

  • “May God raise a Wilburforce to lead our nation to true repentance, not the politically expedient kind.”

    Actually Wilberforce was a grandmaster at parliamentary chess and was ever ready to engage in political alliances with fairly unsavory members of parliament in order to reach his reform goals. He understood both the innocence of doves and the wiliness of serpents.

  • JA and Tony H,

    The crowd in control is destroying everything.

    I plan to act accordingly: drink heavily and fire up a stinky, cheap cigar.

    Your nation is about to feel the wrath of the gods of the copy book. Forget repentance. It ain’t happening if you don’t vote Romney/Ryan.

    I’m emigrating to Chile. Pinochet saved Chile in 1973. Nothing can save America if Obama gets re-elected.

  • Concerning Wilberforce (sorry about the spelling earlier):
    It would be one thing if Romney’s problem was cutting deals with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to further the pro-life cause. In some atlernate universe where Romney reaches a compromise with Democrats to allow abortions only in the case of rape and incest, I would sing his praises. I would keep fighting for complete abolition, but it would be a great victory won.
    But this isn’t my problem with Romney. I can’t square his stance when he signed a pro-abort pledge to Planned Parenthood, or gave them a personal check, to the timing of his switch to pro-life. This doesn’t even take into consideration all his other stances on social and economic issues on which he has done an about-face.
    I didn’t read anything in the Wilberforce bios about a sudden switch in his stance on slavery when it was politically advantagious. He did start off with the abolition of the slave trade before he won the final victory of abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

  • “I can’t square his stance when he signed a pro-abort pledge to Planned Parenthood, or gave them a personal check, to the timing of his switch to pro-life. This doesn’t even take into consideration all his other stances on social and economic issues on which he has done an about-face.”

    As I have noted, I have called Romney a weathervane for his switching of positions. That bothers me. However, it does not bother me a fraction as much as a second Obama term would. As I have also noted, I have no doubt that Romney would govern as a pro-life president, for his own political advantage if for no better reason. I was also not comparing Romney to Wilberforce. My argument is that the pro-life cause should emulate the ideals, the persistence and the political shrewdness of Wilberforce in his fight against slavery.

  • T. Shaw-
    Despite what the man himself may think, God is bigger than Obama.
    I fully expect the copybook heading gods to have their way with us eventually. If past administrations are a guide, voting in Republicans only slows the rush to doom, it doesn’t stop it.
    Don-
    I totally agree with the last sentence you wrote. I disagree as to how to go about that. Think of the hard left turn the democratic party took after Nader kept Gore from winning in 2000. I think the GOP needs a Nader moment. If pro-lifers keep giving auto-allegience to the Republicans, they will keep the boiler-plate pro-life platform statements while not doing anything of substance to actually force change.
    This may be a cynical viewpoint, but I believe it’s true: The GOP, like the Democratic Party, are election machines. They each have the goal of getting as many of their guys elected as possible. The platforms are the means to an end, not the end themselves. Each panders to constituencies. The worst thing in this system is to be a constituency that your political party thinks is totally in the bag for them. The best thing is to be a constituency that could go either way. Think hispanics and how both parties actively woo them and how this has made immigration enforcement a non-issue.
    If the Republicans win the WH in November, no thanks to me, they will be stuck in “economy, stupid” mode and my prediction is that little head way will be made in the pro-life fight. The repeal of Obamacare is not a sure thing barring a supermajority sweep in the Senate, which I think is very unlikely. After the Roberts fiasco I’ve just about written off the Supreme Court. That laid the ax to the last great argument for voting in Republican presidents, no matter what.

  • What Tony H has said above speaks for me as well. I couldn’t have expressed my views any more eloquently.

    And Tony H has it exactly right re: Roberts. His flip in the ObamaCare decision has single-handedly destroyed the Supreme Court argument in favor of voting for Republican presidents.

  • Well, one thing is certain: the abortion status quo isn’t going to improve if the election is handed to Obama. And it is pretty pessimistic in my view to write off what may be accomplished with a GOP-controlled White House, Congress and possibly Supreme Court. Of course the party machine and the politicians themselves will not – and will never, ever, on any important issue – move quickly enough. But with the GOP in power, the government is far more sensitive to and receptive to grassroots pro-life efforts. It is far more susceptible to intense pressure tactics. The Democrats don’t have to placate pro-life voters; the Republicans do. How far the Republicans go depends entirely upon how far and how hard we are willing to push them.

    Abortion is not a political issue, in the end. It is a cultural issue. Change comes from the war of ideas and feelings on the ground, fought out between groups of activists. The most government will do is respond to the tectonic shifts we create. So I would suggest that some people revise their understanding of what governments and political parties are and do.

  • “Think of the hard left turn the democratic party took after Nader kept Gore from winning in 2000. I think the GOP needs a Nader moment.”

    Complete and total rubbish. Pro-lifers effectively control the GOP now. That is why we have a tidal wave of pro-life legislation since the Republicans took control of so many state legislatures in 2010. Pro-lifers are not some ever disgruntled faction within the GOP. We ‘ve converted the Republican party into the vehicle for the pro-life causes. Fortunately the vast majority of pro-lifers do not agree with you, and your example will have little impact. If your idea were followed it would send the pro-life cause into the political wilderness for a generation and effectively destroy the voice of the unborn in either of the two major parties, while giving the cause freak show status on the third-party-waste-of-time-circuit.

  • “Abandon all hope, . . . ” Dante

  • And Tony H has it exactly right re: Roberts. His flip in the ObamaCare decision has single-handedly destroyed the Supreme Court argument in favor of voting for Republican presidents.
    Roberts claimed that it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to judge legislation from Congress, so he abdicated his job. Obama told the Department of Justice to enforce his-EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President. Roberts turned Obama on us and refused to judge the Affordable Healthcare Act and did as he was told by Obama. Vote Republican and Hope for FREEDOM and Change tyranny.