He may have convinced some people he isn't a robot with his sad eyes and anecdotes about his parents. But to me he mostly looked like someone suffering from gastric distress, and his tone was incredibly condescending.
For those who tuned in hoping to hear answers, to hear solutions, there were none. And I don't believe the optics worked for him. His warmongering towards the end did bring us back to the rich guy who likes to fire people. He talked tough, but he didn't look or sound strong. But I'll stick with that one word: condescending. I doubt that is a winning image.
Romney seemed to be trying to give the GOPers in the room just enough of what they needed to hear while the spine of his speech was reaching voters disappointed with President Obama.
More in sorrow than anger he seemed to be saying, President Obama wasn't up to the job. To make this case he had to lie, as usual. Otherwise he was simply condescending. What this country needs is a real American to lead it, he said. Condescension depends on implication, but that one was hardly subtle.
But then, I'm not his audience because I am not so disappointed in President Obama, and even if his election was an emotional landmark--how could it not be?--I'm not confusing that with disappointment in what he did: pulling us back from the brink of a second Great Depression, healing our relationships with other countries and the world, ending the war in Iraq, effectively making Al Queda much much less of a threat, passing inclusive health care reform after 75 years of presidents who tried and couldn't do it--reform that not only reflects America's compassionate best but will help the economy and the federal budget for the future. And so on.
Most people tomorrow will probably be talking about Clint Eastwood, whose bizarre rambling appearance was the first thing that viewers saw who tuned in for the speech on the broadcast networks. And I assume they'll be asking the question, if Romney can't organize his biggest night, how can he organize a presidency? A question that's been recurring for awhile.
On the whole, when America was tuning in--which apparently wasn't often--the images I doubt were helpful. Keynoter Chris Christie looked mean and angry. Commentators agree that most prominent speakers talked more about themselves than Romney and Ryan, or why they should be elected.
Meanwhile, the New York Times fact checkers have already added Romney's speech to Ryan's as depending on lies. And in a sentence that by now is perfect Timesean understatement, they conclude:
"The two speeches — peppered with statements that were incorrect or incomplete — seemed to signal the arrival of a new kind of presidential campaign, one in which concerns about fact-checking have been largely set aside."
No comments:
Post a Comment