So, I just got home. And I'm tired. Which is why I'm glad I wrote all this earlier. XD
Anyway, here's my review on each of the Presidential Candidate's speeches at the Values Voters Summit.... It was SO fun. :-D
Rick Santorum: Santorum’s speech was very charismatic; he came across as a rather chipper speaker, and his speech appealed extremely well to the family-abortion-based voter, due to his heavy emphasis on these types of values. Former Senator Santorum divided his speech into two parts, one relying heavily on the value of traditional marriage, and the other on the weight of the abortion issue. In my view, his audience support built quite a bit throughout his speech, evidenced by the progress in the volume in the room each time he popped a clever, conservative one-liner. In my observations, the number of Santorum shirt stickers, initially a meaningless name, quadrupled during the break after his speech. He ended his speech with the epilogue of his wife’s book, (who, he added, sold more copies of HER book that HE did HIS…. :-D) and received a standing ovation. What I failed to hear, however, was something new and genuine. Unfortunately, the vast majority, if not all, of his rhetoric reflected things that he has articulated before. Granted, the forms in which he presented his ideas presented themselves as novel, such as how he brought his family on stage and told the story of his 4th child. They did not demonstrate any new views, though. Voters already know what he stands for, and Santorum failed to bring forth any new concepts.
Rick Perry: As a voter would expect from one who captured the hearts of Republicans in the first week of his campaigning, has stood as Texas’ longest-term Governor, and possesses the ability to recover well from any type of blunder, (and, as my Sister said, “He looks like Ronald Reagan!”) Perry’s speech to the audience of the Values Voters Summit reflected a wide prism of issues. Unlike Santorum before him, Perry focused his speech on American Exceptionalism, Economic Integrity, and Military Security. While he did touch on the family values and abortion battles, the latter of which he utilized his efforts as Governor to augment, much of his address directed itself toward the aforementioned tangible issues of money and defense. To Perry’s credit, I did observe a fairly solid view on military issues, a topic that I have found lacking in his previous discourses. Similarly, he reiterated his verbal belief in free-market economics; one of his memorable one-liners consisted of the idea that America “needs to get Government back into the free-market.” He did not fail to tout his ever-present job-creation record in Texas. Personally, however, I find myself quite wary of some qualifiers he inserted into his rhetoric. First, he stated, “We need a free, REGULATORY environment (for business).” (Emphasis added) Regulatory? That does not exemplify free-market principles. Also, he argued that, paraphrased, “Business regulation proposals for the next six months to be frozen.” Six months? What about everything before and after that period? Because of a horrible memory, I cannot recall any other exact sentences, but those soft spots in his economic views plant doubt in my mind.
Herman Cain: (Thanks to Ryan McDonald for actually remembering to take notes.) “Did I hear you say, “Yes, We Can?” Coming on the stage after an audience-wide satire on President Obama’s campaign slogan, Mr. Cain warmed the audience up well for a rousing speech on American Exceptionalism. Contrary to the dictionary definition of the term, however, the former Godfather Pizza CEO did not emphasize the fine political points of the doctrine. Rather, Cain emphasized how “exceptional” America is, through its value structure and rich heritage. Delving into the values portion of his speech, Cain wasted no time in clarifying his stances on both marriage and abortion, stating his firm beliefs in one man-one woman marriage, and life from conception to death. This placated the crowd, as the Susan B. Anthony survey passed out to the convention earlier portrayed Cain as a fairly moderate social conservative. He then transitioned to the typical conservative attack on the liberal Federal Government, stating that the Declaration of Independence allows for “altering and abolishing” of a tyrannical government. Upon reading this, Cain declared, “We’ve got some altering and abolishing to do!” This garnered deafening roars from a pleased Values Voters Summit audience. From there, the support for Cain escalated: he stated his support for a strong national defense, presenting a plan to build new ICBMs. Upon accomplishing this, Cain asserted, he would turn to President Akhmadinejad, and say to him: “Make. My. Day.” Needless to say, this also thrilled the already-enthralled audience, prompting a standing ovation. Continuing with his popular ideas, Cain presented his unique tax plan, which drew chants from the audience: “9-9-9!!!” With the almost fever-pitch support running through the viewers, Cain mocked a question that was posed to him by an earlier journalist: “Why are you running for President?” Cain stated: “To be President! Duh! I’m not running to go to Disneyland!” At this point, Cain presented his closing remarks: He called America “the shining city on the hill that has slipped off. We need to push America back to the top of the hill, and I need your help!” Cain presented perhaps the most rousing speech of the Presidential Candidates at the convention, and resonated well with the voters there. Every point he gave in the latter half of his speech received a standing ovation. His naturally evangelical stance bolstered his support, and after he spoke, about a third of the audience left to get a book signed; every book of his at the summit sold out right then and there.
Newt Gingrich: Kicking his address off with this comment, “I think this is the first time two Georgians have run for President, and have come up back-to-back,” Gingrich displayed a surprising amount of humor during his Voters Values Summit introduction. His wit, however, quickly made way for Gingrich’s trademark intellectual remarks. Now, I first expected that the controversial remarks would come solely from Congressman Ron Paul, who holds views that differ marginally from many traditional conservatives. Gingrich, however, proved this wrong to me when he stated that “Judicial Supremacy” equaled “Judicial Dictatorship,” and that “Judicial Supremacy” represented a factually and morally wrong concept. To clarify, Gingrich did not offer the idea that the courts hold no power. He instead pointed to the examples of the California Proposition 8 case, and banning of the words “God” and “benediction” from the school system. Personally, calling Judicial Supremacy “morally wrong” represents a faulty conclusion, based on Isaiah 22:33. Also, equivocating it to “dictatorship” exemplifies a slippery slope fallacy. This example, however, turned out to be the only “red flag” comment to me. In fact, the remnant of his discourse proved fairly entertaining, with Gingrich still lightly criticizing our court system, promising that he would challenge President Obama to a series of Lincoln-Douglass debates should he receive the Republican nomination, and quoting Nancy Pelosi: “When the courts speak, it’s as if God himself has spoken,” to state that Pelosi’s party mentioning God represents a large step in the right direction. Again skillfully incorporating his apt intellect into his speech, Gingrich pointed out inefficiencies and current problems in our checks and balance system, while calling for votes to allow him to fix these problems. As he concluded his speech, Gingrich promised originalism, balance, and efficiency. His speech, in all, offered much critique, and much intellectual food for thought.
Michelle Bachmann: “Michelle, I love you!” “Well, I love you too!” These lines represented the first audible words after the pre-speech applause subsided. Even before the political rhetoric started, Bachmann captivated the audience with her charming smile and amicable demeanor. Audience members did not feel the daunting aura along the lines of Gingrich, nor quite the immense patriotism of Cain. In fact, the Congresswoman drew a fine line between the two, to the point where her attitude mimicked that of a cross-table conversation, and her tone voiced that of a seasoned public speaker. Through a brief recourse of America’s rich heritage, and review of wasteful and inefficient present legislation, Bachmann set the stage for her own unique brand of Americanism; many would term it “tea party rhetoric.” Pointing to the successes of our Founding Fathers, and her past congressional triumphs, Bachmann promised that she would lead the “fight” to take back Congress and the Oval Office. In all, Bachmann’s speech covered all of her normal talking points, including loyalty to the military, grassroots efforts, and attentiveness to the examples of Churchill and Reagan. Her discourse, however, communicated two weaknesses: first, her slight lack of civic understanding. Among other promises, many of which legitimately fall under the duties of the Executive Office, Bachmann promised to create a filibuster-proof Senate. While this idea holds appeal, the President cannot amend nor reform the rules of either houses of Congress; this duty falls to whichever house wishes to amend its rules. Attempting to influence the makeup of a separate branch of Government, short of bombing and reconstructing the entire organization, violates the system of checks and balances, and opens up the door to a mightier executive authority than our Founding Fathers intended. Also, Bachmann painted a picture of a broken Government, one which completely ignores our roots and our legislative documents. Whether or not this truly represents the case remains to be seen. Even with this image of a fractured bureaucracy, unfortunately, the Congresswoman did not offer any comprehensive solutions to any of the major problems she highlighted. She DID mention a repeal of the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act, about 10 times in her speech, and an abolishment of the EPA, the DoE, and more departments, which she did not name. Mere destruction of certain sectors of Government, however, does not amount to reform, just deform. To her credit, though, she concluded her speech with a lengthy discourse on her faith in Christ Jesus, which resonated quite well with the audience at the Values Voters Summit. This summit, however, promotes a purpose of political issues, not altar calls. (Much as I like altar calls.) Without a clear proposal to substantiate her claims of improved efficiency and accountability, the Congresswoman presented a speech with a lot of icing, and little to no cake.
Ron Paul: (Thanks to Ryan McDonald and Jonathan Monroe for taking excellent notes on this speech in my absence. I slept in.) Never failing to inspire awe in the audience, Congressman Ron Paul’s mere presence drew deafening cheers from a sizable chunk of the Voters Values Summit audience. His opening alluded to Samuel speaking to the people about the dangers of a king, how a king would tax them heavily and how he would take their sons for war. Without hesitation, Paul linked this to our current government, asserting that the actions of our current government fulfill Samuel’s prediction. In a thorough exposition, the Congressman assailed the Federal Government, emphasizing his famous anti-war stance. This topic formed the first half of his speech, decrying war as “family-destroying,” a cause of soldier suicide, and a violation of the golden rule. Unsurprisingly, Congressman Paul spent much time after this attacking the irresponsibility of the national debt. In an evident effort to garner support from his overwhelmingly Christian audience, however, Paul strayed from his normally pure political elucidations. This time, the Congressman sought to incorporate the Bible into his points. In one of the most memorable parts of the address, the Congressman termed the national debt “unbiblical.” (From here on, I work from hearsay; curse my sleep deprivation.) While Paul’s attempt to cater to the values of the audience come across as commendable, he failed to adequately cover many of his more controversial beliefs; prostitution legalization, federal marriage standards, and foreign aid come to mind. In fact, even though the Congressman called the debt “unbiblical,” he failed to support this bold claim with evidence from the Bible itself. All in all, the address came across as a normal Ron Paul libertarian appeal, with a bit of scripture mixed in, and a skirt of the more contentious values. As always, though, Mr. Paul began and ended his speech with thunder from the audience.
Mitt Romney: With biting satire, Governor Romney stated “I’ve been to the Values Voters Summit for six years, and this is the largest crowd yet… President Obama really is the conservative movement’s biggest supporter.” Not surprisingly, the bulk of his speech consisted of the failures of the Obama administration, such as Solyndra, the stimulus, and even reiterated a statement that he partially recanted earlier in the year: “Obama took the recession, and made it worse.” In typical Romney charismatic fashion, he utilized his characterizations of the current administration to highlight initiatives the Romney administration would take. Predictably, his first example underscored the inefficiency of Obamacare, which led up to the Solyndra example, Chinese patronization, collective bargaining, and defense budgets. His deep baritone voice resonated through the crowd, promising free trade, venture capitalism, stronger national defense, and abolishment of many pieces of legislation. Later in the speech, though, Romney started to balance his emphasis on economic problems with a focus on the family issues of marriage and abortion. Among these ideals, Romney offered the tangible solutions of holding fathers financially responsible for children, and calling on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Concluding his speech, Romney labeled values the “strength of our nation,” and urged the audience to refrain from “poisonous language” which does not assist our cause. Personally, I found Romney’s speech to adequately, perhaps monotonously, cover the talking points that he has put forth before, with a greater emphasis on family issues.
