So, Adam Reilly and Jon Keller both gave the “What Exactly Does That Mean?” treatment to Patrick’s acceptance speech. Adam quotes a nearby eighth grade critic, clearly wise beyond her years: “Nice cliché”; Keller groans at Patrick’s “vague nostrums” and “platitudes”.
Well, gosh. You’d think Patrick should have written a sonnet, or put up a Power-Point presentation: “Deval Patrick in: An Inconvenient Personal Income Tax Rollback”. (Hey, maybe a sonnet in Power Point. Get on it, Deval.)
I mean, let’s apply this kind of scrutiny to some other speeches …
“Four score and seven years ago –“
Uh, Abe, I think you could have just said “eighty-seven”, m’K? You’re clearly just trying to pad out a really short speech. “Gettysburg Address” is right — you probably wrote it on the back of an envelope.
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country –“
Ah-ah-ah, I’ve heard this liberal hustle before, Jack — you just want to raise our taxes.
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself –“
Uh, right. That and, oh, freaking HITLER, and KAMIKAZE FREAKING PLANES DIVEBOMBING US, and GLOBAL CATACLYSM — [Sam Kinison screech] AAAAAAAAHHAHHHHHHH! AAAAAHAHHHHHH! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Folks … it’s an acceptance speech. There’s a time and a place for wonkery — I love wonkery — but this wasn’t it. Since politics is about making coalitions, a speech has got to be about broad philosophy, about the things that folks share, and yes, emotions — it has to be motivating.
I mean, what do you want, blood?
Why doesn’t he ask the people sitting behind me who were crying when the speech was over?
<
p>
I’m not sure they could tell you what it “means” either – but I know who they’re voting for.
Because it counters others who cried and still others who compared it to the “iHave aDream” speech.
Obviously our perspectives differ, but I got a chuckle from his postings from the convention.
<
p>
Look, the partisan folks here need to pay attention to guys like him, Hiller, and Battenfeld. Like it or not (and I suspect not, a lot of the time), these guys will move public opinion among a lot of voters. Knowing how to respond is going to be important — for all the campaigns.
Aren’t 99.9% of the things that come out of Keller’s mouth entirely predictable? I don’t see why he merits watching / listening to.
<
p>
And I have to say that I am a little baffled as to the seeming credence that he generally has around here. Is it just because he has a “blog” on the WBZ website?
it’s because he reaches thousands and thousands more people than we do, because he’s on TV. So he’s a player, and an opinion-maker, and even if you don’t agree with him very often you’ve got to take him seriously.
I think Keller has a point.
<
p> It’s not going to be enough to be the best orator; taxpayers want to hear solutions. While I was at the convention – I turned on my “I’m just a voter” ears and heard the same thing as Keller did. People don’t want to hear about “hope” – they want to hear about “help.” Residential property taxes are nearly the burden they were prior to Prop 2 1/2. Local aid cuts and lottery diversion have brutalized unrestricted local aid, while fixed costs such as healthcare insurance, pensions, etc. for cities and towns have skyrocketed, as have energy and utility costs. The truth is, taxpayers are paying more for less services, and the tax crunch is hurting the working poor and middle class, and especially the elderly. This is a golden opportunity for the Democrats, because we already have Muffy “let ’em eat cake” Healy on record as stating that the elderly are overhoused and shouldn’t they sell their homes and go into apartments.
<
p>
It’s about taxes. Please don’t think it’s anything else. Don’t argue that taxes are for the common good, yada yada yada – people don’t care about that when they’re struggling. The guy who breaks through on the tax issue can beat Healy. Bill Clinton used to have a sign up that said, “It’s the Economy, Stupid.” We should take a page from his playbook.
That is mostly correct, although one has to keep one’s audience in mind. Patrick wasn’t speaking to the general public at the Convention, but to the delegates, particularly his delegates and the undecided delegates. To this audience, the speech was highly motivational, and accomplished what he set out to accomplish. Did you notice how every person on that floor was listening? Did that happen when Tom Reilly spoke? Or when Chris Gabrieli spoke? What I heard from Deval was one of the best Massachusetts Convention speeches I have ever heard, towering over Marjorie Claprood’s speech at the 1990 Convention. It was a Convention speech on a par with Mario Cuomo’s 1984 speech, Jesse Jackson’s 1988 speech, Ted Kennedy’s 1980 speech, and pretty close to Barack Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic National Conventions.
<
p>
But Deval will have to perform differently in debates, interviews, and commercials, to reach his intended audience. Based on what I’ve seen from him so far, I think he is capable of doing it successfully, but you never know. I know that Deval has something called “duende” that an old Boston Globe columnist coined years ago, and Reilly and Gabrieli, despite their positive qualities, just don’t have. I think that counts for something, and will resonate with the public when they tune into Deval.
I think yellowdog was right that this is a lot to do with the audience and setting. I haven’t heard the acceptance speech yet, but the nomination speech was excellent, and right for the setting. yes peolpe want solutions, but everyone there must have researched the candidates positions, and the event was more about motivating the crowd to help out.
<
p>
I’ve seen deval speak twice: once at Brandeis University to group of mostly college kids, and the second time was in Shrewbury just across the river from Worcester to mostly suburban parents and local town officials. Very disticnt focuses in both, because of the very different audiences. At Brandeis, big issues were Sudan, the T, education, and tons of other areas, but no one asked about taxes, income or property. In Shrewsbury, the only issues seemed to be local aid/public school/property tax issues, some questions on health care, and one on the Armenian genocide.
<
p>
But in both Deval talked about his plan that I really think does make him stand out on the tax issues: he is the only candidate talking about cutting property taxes and increasing local aid. This method clearly not only provides financial relief to those affected, but would help ease the major debate that comes up in every town every year: override or fire teachers?
I would agree with you that Deval was speaking to a certain audience – ie, his delegates, but quess what? He needs one message for all voters – and not just the activists. There are thousands and thousands of independents who will need convincing of the Patrick message and if he’s got multiple messages, I will guarantee you that he will forget which message he should be putting forth.
<
p>
To wit: Shannon O’Brien’s unraveling at the last debate.