Over on Facebook, a couple of my true-red conservative and pure-gold LP friends have proclaimed, with a kind of outraged purity, that of course they weren't watching the Democrat convention! Why, you couldn't pay them to watch!
That's one way. The problem with it is that if you don't keep an eye on 'em, politicians will rob you blind. Every four years, the two biggest parties go to the trouble of telling us (at least in part) just how they plan to work the heist -- and who would pass up that kind of advance notice? Sure, they cloak it in fancy rhetoric and stirring speeches, usually accompanied with the kind of the-crowd-goes-wild rah-rah that covers up the more hand-wavy parts.
I let 'em run as background noise, rarely looking at the screen. If someone well-known or unusual speaks (a Republican former Governor, for instance), I'll pay a little more attention. Tam actually watched parts of it, but she's the bigger political junkie of the household.
Not much in the way of huge cheering crowds for the Democrats this year, and all the better chance to see what they would do if they had their 'druthers.
Not a lot of surprises. Michelle Obama turns out to be a surprisingly effective speaker, in a kind of reading-stories-to-kids manner -- and you might chortle at that, but it's a version of the folksiness that took Ronald Reagan a long way. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, I keep waiting for him to say, "They loved me in the Catskills," and launch into one-liners from a classic Borscht Belt standup. (Sorry, Bern; I grew up when former vaudeville acts still set the standard for TV comedy and accents similar to yours were a sure sign the speaker was going to be hilarious. You, sir, are no Uncle Miltie, and we're all the poorer for it.)
Political speeches don't come much more purely political than at a national convention -- and it turns out the more ringing they are, the flatter they fall without the hubbub and spectacle. Will it matter come November? I don't know.
But the Dems pretty much laid out their campaign strategy last night, right there where anyone could see it -- if you took the time to listen. It will be interesting to compare their performance to that of the Republicans next week.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
3 comments:
I watched most of the "convention" last night, interspersed with trips to the bathroom or to get another glass of water. The other interruptions were for me to switch over to Fox news to see what they were saying. (Normally, I split my viewing time between Fox & MSNBC. I hate getting only one side of a story.)
Unlike most that I've heard/read, I was disappointed with Obama's speech - thought she could have done much better. Also unlike many, I was happy to have done with the falderal that accompanies live audiences. Audience responses merely lengthen the procedure. I don't need an audience's slant on what's happening.
I don't watch any political speech for the simple reason they take too long (especially when interrupted by scripted applause).
I find that I get more out of reading the transcripts the next day. Not only does it take less time, you don't miss as much due to audience reactions or commentators injecting themselves. I can read much faster than the average person speaks.
Since my civic duty (and self preservation in the long run) requires that I pay attention to these people, I prefer to minimize my time spent on that distasteful task.
I do the same thing when at a museum with those audio "guides". I ask if they have a copy of the transcript so I can move through at my own pace, not waiting for the voice on the tape to drone through their script. I find I enjoy the experience much more.
The National Anthem via Zoom chorus from 50+ plus states [Guam, USVI, probably DC and Puerto Rico but if so I missed them] was nice. And, whether planned or not, allowed everyone to choose to stand, kneel, or just sit in the privacy of their own home.
Post a Comment