“Donald Trump’s speech was important,” writes Peggy Noonan in the WSJ. “He is a vivid figure and for a year has elicited strong reactions. By now he’s exhausting. We have Trump Fatigue. Also, who doesn’t know how he feels about him? His acceptance speech was an opportunity to break through in a new way and flesh out his purpose. I think he succeeded, though with a certain grimness. He’d probably reply that the times are grim.”
Ms. Noonan goes on to highlight Mr. Trump’s over-long acceptance speech.
On U.S. foreign policy being a disaster to peace and stability:
… Hillary Clinton’s legacy does not have to be America’s legacy.
On banning Muslims:
We must immediately suspend immigration from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism until such time as proven vetting mechanisms have been put in place.
On being a populist candidate:
I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves. . . . My greatest compassion will be for our own struggling citizens. … the forgotten.
On a major difference between Trump and Hillary:
My opponent asks her supporters to recite a three-word loyalty pledge. It reads, ‘I’m with her.’ I choose to recite a different pledge: ‘I’m with you, the American people.’
“It was not an eloquent speech, not lofty, very plain and blunt,” concludes Ms. Noonan. “It covered a lot of territory and went too long. … It was at points too hyped and declarative, and it was sometimes grandiose. … But it was powerful.”
One reader voices the sentiment of perhaps many:
After watching Trump for months now, I can confidently say I don’t like him. … About the only thing worse than Trump is the establishment. … Perhaps it is folly to dream of a small government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. But I will not be the conservative who votes for Hillary by staying home.