Last night, I was on the treadmill listening to NPR to some show that had some pundits on discussing post-speech. (Not sure which show it was, maybe On Point?) Anyway, the moderator asked one of the guests what grade he would give McCain's speech and the guy said "For John McCain, this was an A minus". I laughed. I mean, what, are we friggin grading on a CURVE now? What are we saying here? Normally John McCain sucks eggs as a speech-giver and we'd give him an F but, FOR HIM, it was better than his usual bland tripe that puts everyone to sleep, so, ON THE CURVE, we'll give him an A. Sheesh. What if schools graded like that? "How come Tommy Got an A and I got a C?". "Because, Susie, FOR HIM it was his best work, even though he's an F student!". Bwahahahahah.

Anyway, here are some reviews.

First Read

But McCain's speech seemed to be a missed opportunity. It appears the campaign decided it simply needed to get through it -- there wasn't anything new, except a longer description of his POW days.

and here

WaPost-“Apparently the leadership of the Republican Party thinks voters are turned off by specifics, and so Sen. John McCain's acceptance speech as its presidential nominee last night was a hodgepodge of generalities, musings on courage, reminiscence about his years as a POW in Vietnam, and rabble-rousing calls for change… He used the word ‘change’ at least 10 times in his bombastic speech -- the convention's emotional climax -- but since the Republicans have controlled the White House for the past eight years, what does McCain want to change from? And to? It really is an audacious ploy, to tell people that the country's got to correct the mistakes made by a political party when that's the very party you represent.”

NYTimes- After watching two political conclaves the last two weeks, it would be easy to be confused about which was really the gathering of the opposition. As Senator John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for president, he and his supporters sounded the call of insurgents seeking to topple the establishment, even though their party heads the establishment… But as a matter of history, it is easier to run as the opposition party if you actually are the opposition party.”

Maybe the White Republican Party wanted to feel some of that extra non-existent persecution.

Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson on MSNBC last night: “The policy in the speech was rather typical for a Republican. Pretty disappointing. It didn't do a lot of outreach to moderates and independents on issues that they care about. It talked, about issues like drilling and school choice which was really speaking to the converted. I think that was a missed opportunity. Many Americans needed to hear from this speech something they have never heard from Republicans before. And in reality, a lot of the policy they’ve heard from Republicans before.”