If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed. -- Benjamin Franklin
But, unhinged as it was, and as little sympathy as I have for Republicans who get what they deserve, I'm willing to cut this guy a little slack.
If you ignore the ranting and just consider the text of the speech, it's no more than typical right-wing pabulum - empty platitudes and rah-rah sloganeering. It's so empty, in fact, that it contains almost no specific proposals at all, which makes it less offensive than many of its type. His real problem is that he is simply a terrible, terrible public speaker (when he mentioned his Master's degree in Communications, I couldn't help laughing out loud). He seemed nervous and overwrought; he couldn't control his inflection, he kept shouting in a way that suggested he was simply too keyed up rather than merely emphatic, his voice kept breaking, and he kept prowling the stage then coming back every half-sentence to check his notes again. But this is all just bad presentation skills - which is in no way a moral, or even a substantively political, failing.
He gave a meaninglessly shallow speech in a very unpracticed manner. So what? Are we mocking people for not having been on the debate team? Maybe he has an unrealistic evaluation of his political skills, but again, so what? He doesn't need us to tell him whether he deserves a nomination or not. That's what elections are for - and the problem's already been handled.
PBS's "Need to Know" has a profile on him in which he comes off as a frustrated sad-sack - sincere but kind of rudderless, and down on his luck financially. He doesn't seem like a bad guy; he just gave a bad speech. It doesn't seem noteworthy, or worth mocking.
Holy crap.
ReplyDeleteBut, unhinged as it was, and as little sympathy as I have for Republicans who get what they deserve, I'm willing to cut this guy a little slack.
If you ignore the ranting and just consider the text of the speech, it's no more than typical right-wing pabulum - empty platitudes and rah-rah sloganeering. It's so empty, in fact, that it contains almost no specific proposals at all, which makes it less offensive than many of its type. His real problem is that he is simply a terrible, terrible public speaker (when he mentioned his Master's degree in Communications, I couldn't help laughing out loud). He seemed nervous and overwrought; he couldn't control his inflection, he kept shouting in a way that suggested he was simply too keyed up rather than merely emphatic, his voice kept breaking, and he kept prowling the stage then coming back every half-sentence to check his notes again. But this is all just bad presentation skills - which is in no way a moral, or even a substantively political, failing.
He gave a meaninglessly shallow speech in a very unpracticed manner. So what? Are we mocking people for not having been on the debate team? Maybe he has an unrealistic evaluation of his political skills, but again, so what? He doesn't need us to tell him whether he deserves a nomination or not. That's what elections are for - and the problem's already been handled.
PBS's "Need to Know" has a profile on him in which he comes off as a frustrated sad-sack - sincere but kind of rudderless, and down on his luck financially. He doesn't seem like a bad guy; he just gave a bad speech. It doesn't seem noteworthy, or worth mocking.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/anatomy-of-a-political-freakout-interview-with-phil-davidson/3433/
And while all that may be true...the Stark County GOP apparently went with somebody else.
ReplyDeleteGuy got his 15 minutes, however. And it's probably not the last we've heard of this fellow.