which_chick (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
which_chick) wrote2012-08-31 10:14 pm
which_chick) wrote2012-08-31 10:14 pm
(no subject)
I am watching Mr. Paul Ryan's speech at the RNC.
And, really, I am not talking about politics very much right now. I am talking about giving speeches and writing speeches and one's physical presentation. I do not yet agree with or disagree with Mr. Ryan's political record. This is about how the man comes off on television, judging from his speech at the RNC. I am watching it because my mom told me to do so (for the above reasons, not for Mr. Ryan's political leanings).
First impressions: Mr Ryan, have you ever heard of an outline? We've done five damn minutes and you've gone from your folks to your kids to your hometown to the opposition (ad-hominem cheap shots). WTF, sir? Ritalin stop working for you?
6:40 into the speech: "About to lose a factory." (Makes sad face.)
7:19 23 million people unemployed or underemployed. (Makes angry face.)
I feel like Mr. Ryan is a replicant.
Y'know who he reminds me of? Fucking Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. But Sheldon is more expressive and stuff, more emotionally connected to other people.
ALL HIS FACIAL EXPRESSIONS LOOK FAKE!!! If he tried less hard, they would work better. The "earnest" one is particularly heinous. The fact that I've labled each expression less than ten minutes into the speech should tell you something.
And he thinks we're dumb. He talks to us like we're dumb. (It is possible that all politicians do this. I do not watch politicians talk very often.) It preaches well to the choir, that you rank on the other guy. But it doesn't tell me what you're gonna do. (10:47, the shit about healthcare.)
Jesus fuck, telling personal anecdotes is not helpful and does not make you seem more human. You are also unable to build an emotional crescendo on talking points that are SUPPOSED to build to an emotional crescendo. ("Needs this debate, wants this debate, will win this debate" is the example I am looking at right now. Violates rule of parallel structure. Just having things in threes is not enough, dude. The threes need to match for maximum effectiveness. Don't you have speechwriters or something?)
Just after: Began with such with anticipation, comes to disappointing close -- NO, NOT GOOD STRUCTURE.
Began with a financial crisis. Ends with a job crisis. -- Ok, but statements are not balanced. Can no-one write in your campaign?
It began with a housing crisis they didn't alone cause, ends with housing crises they did not correct. -- NO. Statements weak and ineffective.
Began with a perfect triple-A credit rating for the United States, ends with a downgraded America. -- NO. No parallel structure.
For fuck's sake, learn to build some damn parallel structure. This near-match stuff is painful.
"These past four years, we have suffered no shortage of words in the White House" -- finally, a damn line he delivers for real. Maybe he's not a robot.
Another good line: "One president, one term, five trillion new debt." This is more effective.
He's not trying to, y'know, propose solutions here (on the "Obama does nothing" portion of the speech) but at least he's clear and focused. It's better than the opening fog.
Damn, now back to the personal anecdotes. Part of the problem, part of the solution. Really? If you trot out "lead, follow, or get out of the way", I'm gonna start throwing things.
STOP WITH THE ANECDOTES. They're not helping. NOT HELPING. You're trying to be cuddly, but it isn't working. You are more emotional, emphatic, and convincing when you're talking about numbers.
The more you try to emote at me (24:57 in, talking about Jack Kemp), the more I feel like you're a sociopath. The pointy finger is not working for me, either. Please stop with the pointy finger. Srsly.
PUT YOUR DAMN HANDS DOWN. This is distracting.
STOP WITH THE HANDS.
Now I have HANDS and PERSONAL ANECDOTES, but at least "Supervision and Sanctimony of Central Planners" is an effective line with nice alliteration and a good bone to throw the libertarians you hope will vote for your allegedly austere fiscal stance.
Talking about music is not going to make me vote for you and anyway Zeppelin is typically alphabetized under "L" for "Led", not under "Z" for "Zeppelin". Dipshit. You can't even be properly autistic. Autistic people know how the hell to alphabetize.
HANDS, please. No. Stop that. You are reminding me of the creepy-as-fuck Sherwin Anderson story.
TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO. The only thing you've said yet is keep gov't spending at 20% of GDP because "that's enough"... enough for what? And what are you going to cut to make that happen? Not Medicare -- you defended Medicare as better than Obamacare.
I get that the RNC speech by the VEEP candidate is not a moment to define a platform. It is a moment for the faithful to feel good about their guy, who will need their support in the coming months. *sigh* And I get that a guy who might represent what his party feels it needs for a viable ticket may not be wired to play well on television. (Without being nasty, the bigger of his two boys is also on the spectrum. He hugs weird.) But, no. This is not an effective candidate presentation.
Sometimes I wish that we didn't have to have candidates who could present themselves well on television. It's like presenting well on television is an essential component of a Presidential Candidate... but what the fuck-all does that have to do with his ability to govern?
And, really, I am not talking about politics very much right now. I am talking about giving speeches and writing speeches and one's physical presentation. I do not yet agree with or disagree with Mr. Ryan's political record. This is about how the man comes off on television, judging from his speech at the RNC. I am watching it because my mom told me to do so (for the above reasons, not for Mr. Ryan's political leanings).
First impressions: Mr Ryan, have you ever heard of an outline? We've done five damn minutes and you've gone from your folks to your kids to your hometown to the opposition (ad-hominem cheap shots). WTF, sir? Ritalin stop working for you?
6:40 into the speech: "About to lose a factory." (Makes sad face.)
7:19 23 million people unemployed or underemployed. (Makes angry face.)
I feel like Mr. Ryan is a replicant.
Y'know who he reminds me of? Fucking Sheldon on Big Bang Theory. But Sheldon is more expressive and stuff, more emotionally connected to other people.
ALL HIS FACIAL EXPRESSIONS LOOK FAKE!!! If he tried less hard, they would work better. The "earnest" one is particularly heinous. The fact that I've labled each expression less than ten minutes into the speech should tell you something.
And he thinks we're dumb. He talks to us like we're dumb. (It is possible that all politicians do this. I do not watch politicians talk very often.) It preaches well to the choir, that you rank on the other guy. But it doesn't tell me what you're gonna do. (10:47, the shit about healthcare.)
Jesus fuck, telling personal anecdotes is not helpful and does not make you seem more human. You are also unable to build an emotional crescendo on talking points that are SUPPOSED to build to an emotional crescendo. ("Needs this debate, wants this debate, will win this debate" is the example I am looking at right now. Violates rule of parallel structure. Just having things in threes is not enough, dude. The threes need to match for maximum effectiveness. Don't you have speechwriters or something?)
Just after: Began with such with anticipation, comes to disappointing close -- NO, NOT GOOD STRUCTURE.
Began with a financial crisis. Ends with a job crisis. -- Ok, but statements are not balanced. Can no-one write in your campaign?
It began with a housing crisis they didn't alone cause, ends with housing crises they did not correct. -- NO. Statements weak and ineffective.
Began with a perfect triple-A credit rating for the United States, ends with a downgraded America. -- NO. No parallel structure.
For fuck's sake, learn to build some damn parallel structure. This near-match stuff is painful.
"These past four years, we have suffered no shortage of words in the White House" -- finally, a damn line he delivers for real. Maybe he's not a robot.
Another good line: "One president, one term, five trillion new debt." This is more effective.
He's not trying to, y'know, propose solutions here (on the "Obama does nothing" portion of the speech) but at least he's clear and focused. It's better than the opening fog.
Damn, now back to the personal anecdotes. Part of the problem, part of the solution. Really? If you trot out "lead, follow, or get out of the way", I'm gonna start throwing things.
STOP WITH THE ANECDOTES. They're not helping. NOT HELPING. You're trying to be cuddly, but it isn't working. You are more emotional, emphatic, and convincing when you're talking about numbers.
The more you try to emote at me (24:57 in, talking about Jack Kemp), the more I feel like you're a sociopath. The pointy finger is not working for me, either. Please stop with the pointy finger. Srsly.
PUT YOUR DAMN HANDS DOWN. This is distracting.
STOP WITH THE HANDS.
Now I have HANDS and PERSONAL ANECDOTES, but at least "Supervision and Sanctimony of Central Planners" is an effective line with nice alliteration and a good bone to throw the libertarians you hope will vote for your allegedly austere fiscal stance.
Talking about music is not going to make me vote for you and anyway Zeppelin is typically alphabetized under "L" for "Led", not under "Z" for "Zeppelin". Dipshit. You can't even be properly autistic. Autistic people know how the hell to alphabetize.
HANDS, please. No. Stop that. You are reminding me of the creepy-as-fuck Sherwin Anderson story.
TELL ME WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO. The only thing you've said yet is keep gov't spending at 20% of GDP because "that's enough"... enough for what? And what are you going to cut to make that happen? Not Medicare -- you defended Medicare as better than Obamacare.
I get that the RNC speech by the VEEP candidate is not a moment to define a platform. It is a moment for the faithful to feel good about their guy, who will need their support in the coming months. *sigh* And I get that a guy who might represent what his party feels it needs for a viable ticket may not be wired to play well on television. (Without being nasty, the bigger of his two boys is also on the spectrum. He hugs weird.) But, no. This is not an effective candidate presentation.
Sometimes I wish that we didn't have to have candidates who could present themselves well on television. It's like presenting well on television is an essential component of a Presidential Candidate... but what the fuck-all does that have to do with his ability to govern?
no subject
Evaluation-You Rock
Advice to the GOP--hire speech and drama coaches, hire speech writers. Romney has the bucks. Spend them well for goodness sakes.