The RNC Convention Speech You May Have Missed …
If Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are to win the White House, they have to succeed in getting the votes of the still-undecided swing voters. With the Democrats in an all-out war based on painting the Republican nominees as the devil incarnate who hope to destroy the well-being of the poor, the dispossessed, women, and all minority groups, the effort to destroy the Democratic and left-wing narrative should be front and center for the Republican Party and its supporters.
Hence, the speech that should have been seen by most TV viewers of the RNC 2012 convention — but which most of the viewers at home did not see — was the little-noticed yet important testimony of Jane Edmonds, Mitt Romney’s secretary of Workforce when he was governor of Massachusetts. Coming before the speeches of Clint Eastwood, Marco Rubio, and Romney himself, it is not surprising that it was missed. But if you flipped channels, most networks — regrettably, even including Fox News — decided instead to give viewers the wisdom of their panel of pundits.
Edmonds, viewers at home would have found, is an African-American woman who proudly called herself a “liberal Democrat.” In a strong and firm voice, Edmonds told the delegates and those who did watch her speech that the Romney she got to know well when he was governor was a supporter of women, appointing them to high positions in his administration. Moreover, she noted that Romney was a bold, strong administrator who worked hard on behalf of the people he represented.
“The late Stephen Covey,” Edmonds said, “writes about 2 kinds of people: one type is all about themselves and their success. The other type works as hard as they can — and certainly succeeds, but their success is motivated by doing good for others. That’s how I see Governor Romney. He is authentic.”
Her very presence indicated that even a self-proclaimed liberal who is also an African-American and a woman can unashamedly and publicly give her support to Romney’s campaign. This undercuts the Democratic narrative in one fell swoop. It is not surprising that a network like MSNBC would choose not to broadcast her short moment in the program, but that most including Fox News did the same is inexcusable.
Destroying the left-wing narrative is particularly important in our current time, when, as Joel Kotkin points out in a very important analysis, there is an “unseen class war” raging in our land, of a type that most commentators have ignored. Kotkin notes that Democrats will base their campaign on trying to convince most Americans that “rich business folks” are responsible for the economic troubles facing the middle class, who feel worse off than they ever have in decades.
Not sure I like the addition of a new set of terms (Kotkin’s) to describe divergent group interests that must be addressed in the Romney campaign. What we have to cope with is a big mess of terminology thanks to the bizarre twists and turns of communist and social democratic propaganda in the all-crucial 20th century. It left most of us confused and angry, a situation I described here: http://clarespark.com/2012/08/30/political-hate-speech-in-the-media/. Would it not be more productive of support for Romney to simply explain the differing approaches to wealth creation in both the Democratic and Republican Parties as they exist today? I mean Keynes versus Friedman, Hayek, etc. It is not that hard to do.
I certainly missed it. I wondered why Condolezza Rice was the only black speaker of prominence, why they hadn’t included Herman Cain, the victim of a despicable dpersonal attack. Maybe one of the PACs could use her presentation in an ad.
I continue to wish that you and other strong conservative voices would drop the reference to “left-wing” and “liberal” and use “Socialist.” This White House’s greatest fear is to be labeled Socialist. It would sink them. So, some Democrats don’t think they are truly Socialists though they are strongly supportive of the Obama agenda. Do we really need to be sensitive to their injured feelings? They need to confront the truth. It is like permitting the Socialists, followers of the Red Star of Cuba and China, to call themselves BLUE in order to deprive us of the powerful opprobrium and rallying-call REDS, with never a whimper of objection. The single greatest step the Right could take to assure victory is to use the S word in a casual, matter-of-fact manner, and force the so-called Democrats to explain why it is incorrect.
“I wondered why Condolezza Rice was the only black speaker of prominence…” While Secretary Rice’s speech was inspiring, Saratoga Springs Mayor Mia Love, who is running for Congress in Utah, had a great personal story and a strong conservative message. Mayor Love’s speech included the following about her parents who immigrated from Haiti:
Let me tell you about the America I know. My parents immigrated to this country with 10 dollars in their pockets and the hope the America they heard about really did exist. When tough times came, they did not look to Washington, they looked within. So, the America I grew up knowing was centered in self-reliance and filled with the possibility of living the American dream.
Stuart, my sentiments exactly.
Even Anita ‘Mao-loving’ Dunn ( one of his short-lived czarinas )unabashedly showed her stripes (during her speech at a graduation ceremony), yet few dared to implicate Obama, and his surrogates, as like-minded travelers.
In fact, at this point there are so many ‘gaffes’ re ‘redistribution’, ‘fairness’ ‘transformation’ etc, how many clues does Sherlock need to solve the case?
In any case,I have zero compunction about calling a spade a spade, thus placing his socialist feet to the fire at my blog commentary – http://www.adinakutnicki.com and a treasure trove will appear!
Condoleeza Rice and Jane Edmonds were NOT the only black speakers of prominence at the GOP convention. The first day of the convention, Mia Love, (mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah and congressional candidate) gave an impassioned speech. Artur Davis, former Democratic congressman and co-chair of Obama’s national campaign in 2008 also spoke brilliantly. Both of their speeches are widely available online.
Why people don’t watch the conventions on C-SPAN escapes me. Edmonds’s speech was broadcast. All the public portions of the convention aired on C-SPAN, blessedly free of selective editing, inane commentary, and other interruptions. You can probably review her speech on your browser; you don’t even need a TV.
Jane Edmonds described Romney as he is: thoroughly decent, competent and caring. This is the message that needs to get out.
And yes, Obama is a marxist and a thug. But those may be bridges too far, given the media shield. It is more productive IMHO merely to state the obvious over and over. Both men are caring*, but only one is competent and successful.
And no, I don’t believe Obama is nice or caring but that image is frozen in so many minds that it is easier to simply have people who worked with Mitt, or who benefitted from his generosity, tell the truth about him. He is decent and nice and caring. And, of course, competent.
If Obama is as nice as people want to believe, it should be easy for the Democrats to come up with personal stories of the kind told by Jane Edmonds showing how he truly is a nice man on a one-to-one level. But I’ll bet that the only way they can actually deliver such stories is if a professional scriptwriter writes them and a professional actor of Meryl Streep’s abilities acts them. I think it is pretty clear that Obama is NOT a nice man at all.
Was it on C-Span? Is there a video of the speech? If so, link please, otherwise why won’t the RNC wise up and provide their own video teams to record ALL the speakers? It would be very instructive for the dozens of MSNBC viewers to see what was censored out of their broadcasts, but really, if people are watching that network they’re already lost and the best we can hope is that they stay home on election day.
Will Romney be sitting down with People magazine for a puff piece that presents his softer side? It certainly came through with his memories of his mom and dad. The story of the rose a day was touching.
All of the RNC 2012 speeches are available at
http://www.youtube.com/user/gopconvention2012/videos
c-span was the place to watch. everything was shown. artur davis says he knows his speech suceeded because the alphabet networks cut it. (he was the first person to endorse obama outside illinois and nominated him at the dnc four yeras ago. he gave a scathing denunciation.) each person’s speech can certainly be found in its entirety on the net. condoleza rice of course. mia love has already been mentioned.
Nikki Haley (indian), the gov of SC who had some major run-ins with the bo administration was wonderful. as was susannah martinez – gov of NM. the gov of peurto rico, luis fortuno, also spoke. ted cruz, running for congress in Tx. bobby jindal (indian descent) was scheduled to speak – but hurrican isaac was a higher priority.
Yes, Susannah Martinez in particular was a revelation. I had heard of her but never seen her. I hope we will see a lot more of her. I watched the whole thing on CSPAN because I wanted to see the convention, not what MSNBC allowed me to see. After watching, as I reflected, I thought, there would probably be a lot more “minorities” speaking at the Dem convention. On further reflection, I counted all the “minorities” who spoke at the GOP convention. There were (as commented above) many! (There was also a young Hispanic athlete who spoke movingly in the section featuring the Olympics.) There were also LOTS of women (Notably Ms. Healy was TERRIFIC and also hope to see more of her.) Going back to minority speakers, perhaps the reason they didn’t register as “minority” is 1) they weren’t angry 2) they dressed in serious business attire 3) they didn’t speak in code words, and so forth. Yes I know “minorities” often wear serious business attire, but you know what I mean. No dashikis or dreadlocks in attendance. But the people who spoke appeared to be part of successful, mainstream culture, not part of ‘counter culture’. They presented a vision of America where people of all walks are truly integrated into the culture, not some kind of weirdos who determinedly talk a different “language”. I found this immensely positive and inspiring. Someone made a crack (was it POTUS?) that the GOP convention seemed to come from the era of black and white TV. Actually, that could be considered a compliment. There were lots of women and minorities on stage, but the feeling was of an honest, hard-working, collaborative America rather than a cynical, what’s-in-it-for-me, divisive place. I for one, liked it!!!!
I saw Edmonds’ speech on C-SPAN – I watched the whole RNC on C-SPAN and avoided the interruptions, commercials and analysts talking over the speakers.
I saw her speech and while it was different, it focused on inclusion and diversity. Not exactly Republican red meat.
This is why C-Span is the only network to watch conventions on. Camera aimed at the speaker, occasional cutaway to the crowd, zero commentary.
Haven’t watched any other networks, but MSNBC was playing at the gym – this is Manhattan after all – and it was 30 minutes of Chris Matthews talking to Al Sharpton with occasional cuts over to Ms Maddow. Even now I don’t know who was speaking, ’cause there was no sound and they never cut away to the stage.
YES!!! I was wondering if I was the only one to notice that Edmonds’ entire speech focused on the standard Liberal talking points about numbers of women on staff, diversity, inclusiveness, caring, etc., etc. Not much about individual responsibility, reduced regulations or taxes. I concur that C-Span was the place to watch (I was at our local Republican Victory Office). Edmonds is a liberal woman, and she can’t see past the end of her Liberal nose.
Ron, you are still laboring under the illusion that objective truth matters in liberal politics. As we learned under Clinton (and previously under more murderous collectivists), truth is what you need at the moment you need it.
I also thought she did a great job! She’s a dem and I thought she said when she was interviewed, before she spoke, that she was an obama supporter. But at the end of her speech she said she was supporting Romney. Good for her!
Romney has always supported strong women in office. This stupid theme of the dems about women is rediculous.
You now they have tried to tar Romney with every label and it’s failed. If it was anyone else they would’ve invented a sex scandal. Kind of funny – they can’t get any dirt on him. He is so decent, so honest and squeaky clean. Don’t you just love it that dirty flint must be working overtime to get any woman to say something nasty about him, but they can’t. I wonder how much money they’ve spent on it?
The despicable NYT even had to say that he has paid taxes over the last 10 years, and dingy hairy was wrong. Don’t you love it!
Of course he has or he would be in jail.
I’m sure the IRS has gone over his tax returns with a magnifying glass, at obama’s insistence of course.
However, I still believe they (Romney’s taxes) are sitting in the oval office and they have ads paid for nit picking every line. I love it! When Romney says he will release 2 years that’s what he will release, and they couldn’t goad him into it.
They are so jealous of him making all that money (and he did it on his own) and they want to make sure that they make all the uneducated jealous too.
And then he goes to NO.
Romney – What a guy!
Even were it the case that the White House had copies of Romney’s unreleased tax returns, they’d be taking a great risk if they attempted to exploit any of the information they contained. If asked to prove any claims and they provided any information from those returns to back up said claims, they’d have to explain how they got hold of such private information. And someone on the Obama team could go to jail over it.
My wife & I watched Jane Edmonds on CNN, and my liberal wife was really surprised when Jane recounted how Romney increased the percentage of women in top leadership roles in Mass. government from about 30% to 50%, almost reaching their proportion in the Mass. population, 51%.
It made her sit up straight on her sofa, and utter an exclamation of surprise.
That alone may drive the final nail into any chances my wife will vote for Obama.
Nothing like appealing to women who believe in equal opportunities for women by action (underline “by action”, thank you), rather than by words.
BP: Ask you wife to count the blacks on the marxists MSM news channels? Have her count the blacks on the staffs of her socialist Congressmen and senators? Have her count the number of blacks and hispanics at Media Matters, HuffPo, Center for American Progress and the new DL super pac? Ask her if Maxine Waters represents her in any way???
“Kotkin notes that Democrats will base their campaign on trying to convince most Americans that “rich business folks” are responsible for the economic troubles facing the middle class, who feel worse off than they ever have in decades.”
Because that’s all the Democrats have left, lies and insults. They are totally bankrupt of any new ideas and their only solution to anything is spending more money we don’t have and growing a Federal government that’s already too big and wasteful. And how’s bigger government and more spending working out for us? Well, just ask the people in California how things are going. Their massive government spending has bankrupted the state and has made taxes skyrocket. So much for liberal Democratic “ideas.”
So now all the Democrats have left is to deamonize those “rich business folks.” Tell me, how many people from the middle class have gotten jobs from poor people? The Democrats never seem to want to address this fact, deciding that it makes more sense to pull everybody down into poverty rather than pull people out of poverty. That’s the essence of social justice, right, to make sure a lot of people have nothing rather than trying to actually improve people’s lot in life. And how’s that working out for the people in Greece and all those other bankrupt European social-welfare states? Not too good from what I can see.
But what the idiots on the left don’t see is that, if we do become Greece, the first people to be hurt will be the poor and the middle class. They will be the first ones to lose all their benefits, all their healthcare, all their pensions, and all of their hope. That is exactly what’s happening in Europe right now and that’s what we have to look forward to if we don’t change things right now. And if Obama is (God forbid) is re-elected and we do go bankrupt like Greece, then what will the far left and the Democrats say? Oh, they will say what they always say, that it’s Bush’s fault. When you’re out of ideas, the last thing you want to do is take responsibility for your misguided actions. And the Democrats keep proving that again and again.
I did see Ms. Edmonds and I was spellbound by every second and every word of her speech. And constantly aware that anybody watching a commercial channel -and/or PBS – would be missing this treat. I realized Tuesday that watching Fox meant missing half the convention, so switched between Fox and CSPAN (high def being the difference). Thursday night I gave up and left it on CSPAN. Thank you Ms. Edmonds for sharing your story.
Salvage it. Use the footage to make an ad in swing states.
Thank you for writing about this.
I had entirely missed it.
I saw Edmonds’ speach. (Those of us watching the convention livestreamed via YouTUbe did not have to put up with the MSM’s filters.)
There is a reason why the MSM repeatedly cut away from the black and hispanic speakers: The Democratic party is the party of slavery (Which party had a KKK member in Congress?) Except today their enslavement comes not via physical chains but instead by economic chains. The biggest danger for the left is that their slaves will discover that they coud be free. As a result, the left goes to great lengths to avoid showing minorities that have been successful and have broken free of the economic enslavement.
I saw/heard Ms. Jane Edmonds speak at Convention. She was terrific!! Lovely woman.
ABC cut away from Condi Rice, to have talking heads try to show us their intelligence and genius.
so instead of Condi Rice we got talking heads.
That is a slap in the face to blacks, to have a black preempted by talking heads
That is a slap in the face to women, tho have a woman preempted by talking heads
That is a slap in the face to the former Secretary of State, who is far more important in this setting than any talking head.
But ABC was kind enough to show split screen with no subtitles when they ran commercials. As if seeing a speaker with no knowledge of what is being said, is equal to the commercial
should have just shown the commercial and been honest.
I also appreciated Jane Edmunds talk, and I admire her courage in speaking out for Mitt Romney. I’m a Salt Laker, and one thing that hasn’t been mentioned in regards to the Olympics. At the time Salt Lake City had a very outspoken, very far-left liberal mayor who was notoriously difficult to work with. He regularly had fights with his staff and city council, so when Romney came in for the Olympics we wondered out that would work. I don’t know how Romney did it, but after a few verbal fireworks at the beginning, they worked out their differences and were able to cooperate to make the Olympics a success. And, most telling, the former mayor has never complained about or criticized Mitt’s leadership even though they were poles apart both in personality and political beliefs.
It is not surprising to me that the MSM continues to practice “sins of omission”. If they had a shred of ethics they would not play these cowardly immature games. I too had missed this woman’s speech. Hopefully, someone has access to her speech and can get it onto YouTube.
The speech was an inspiring simply because it was so obviously sincere. Jane Edmonds comes across as completely genuine. I’m sure she’ll be out on the campaign trail, even if in a limited way by campaigning in MA.
I was hoping there would be a link here, but I didn’t find one, so I searched for it. You can find the speech at the youtube link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XL7wZuHVx9A
No-Brainer: Get the video. Post it. Make it go viral.
I knew about her background before the speech and I was watching CSPAN so I did get to see it. And I noticed that there was not a peep from the crowd, not a single boo, when she identified herself as a liberal Democrat. I doubt that a conservative Republican speaking at the DNC would get the same. I think it was courageous of her to give that speech there, but I’m sure she would say that it was no trouble to speak about a colleague she thinks so highly of–that’s what respectful people do.
What you left out of your Article is a link to the speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KCGv9yoW-c
Editors – Get on the ball.
Let me see if I understand this. Ms. Edmonds is a liberal Democrat. Romney appointed her to his cabinet when he was Governor of Massachusetts, and she supports him for President.
And this is a reason to vote for Romney?
And does this also portend that Mitt will reach across the isle ala McLame and compromise our principles in order to act bipartisan…. When has that ever helped us?
Why is everyone here getting so warm and fuzzy about a black woman speaking for Mitt?? Was that your litmus test for him and now you will vote for him?
So Mitt had blacks and women in his cabinet and now he is okay to vote for. Must have those quotas, right?? How about someone asking if she was the most qualified for the position like Ozero. You mean Mitt had to keep a progressive on his staff, for what reason? What was his motive? She was just soooo good at her job?
So now each of you has to ask yourselves this: Will Mitt keep the DOJ intact? EPA? Will he reach across the isle and keep the progs in their places to look bipartisan??
Unless you streamed the convention or watched C-SPAN, you might have missed the RNC’s slate of diverse speakers, including Jane Edmonds, a liberal. Romney appointed her to serve in his administration when he was Mass. governor, and she recounted that at least half of Romney’s staff were women, including those in high-level positions (such as herself). Her endorsement is powerful and speaks to Romney’s ability to reach across the aisle and cooperate with those who do not necessarily share his political views. He is goal-oriented.
The alphabet networks did their best to cast the event as a whites-only Klan rally by ignoring minority Republican speakers, and they did a great disservice to the country in order to advance their agenda. To me, the networks’ actions were racist.
This is why it’s better to watch on c-span, where you miss virtually nothing.
Ms. Edmonds is a hero in my book, because we know how much pushback she is going to get from her own party now. It took integrity and courage for her to step forward. In so doing she shows herself to be a patriot – misguided in her liberalism, in my view, but nonetheless a patriot at heart. That is more than I can say for many on the left.
NBC skipped the first 3 minutes of Rubio’s speech because Brian Williams and Andrea Mitchell were blabbering on about how senile they believe Clint Eastwood is. Excellence in journalism to serve the American public. Not.
rich politicans are responsible for our current economic woes.
We enjoyed Jane Edmonds speech, but the one that really blew us away (even more than Marco Rubio’s!) was Derek Parra’s.
Mitt Romney caught on hidden camera – claims some Church Leadership is Pro-Choice Published on Jul 28, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vINVnWYk0U&feature=watch-vrec