Tuesday, April 19, 2011


  Which Means Obama’s Only Hope is Pinned to The Donald. But Even That Won’t Work. 
     Q.  He says things bluntly which no one else says…such as steal Libya’s oil and enrich our coffers.  Is that Trump’s appeal?
      A.  No—his appeal is that he has tremendous name ID from his network show “The Apprentice” which up to now anyhow swamps the polls.
     Q.   He’s the only potential candidate who refers to Obama’s missing hard-copy birth certificate from which there has never been an official response aside from saying it is meaningless.  
    A.  A one trick pony—and even that trick is wearing out.  You watch—his past and earlier remarks will catch up with him. He’s called for Universal Health Care, for example.  He advocates America as becoming a true international outlaw nation—confiscating oil….theft in other words…from Middle Eastern countries where we have put down despots.  You once thought Sarah Palin was a super-force  to be reckoned with?   Her avaricious quest for celebrity and her cynically packaging Bristol as a marketing commodity did her in.    Trump’s will too. But give her credit, Palin has a somewhat unified philosophy of governance—contained in hard-to-listen-to high decibel screeches on the campaign trail.
         Trump has no such discipline. He engages in bloviating examples of bravado….declaring for example that his net worth is bigger than Mitt Romney’s…mine is bigger than yours!   The only salutary thing Trump could have contributed to 2012 would be to say in blunt terms what other more malleable candidates would or could not and retire to the wings after the nominating convention. He intends to run as an independent. He’ll be far less compelling than Perot.  And he’s on the way to becoming the Class Clown.   Wait til people find out George Soros bailed him out of a jam in 2008. 
         Q.  You referred to Palin’s screeching on the campaign stump.
      A. Did you catch that clip of her last night from Iowa?  Bachmann’s is almost as bad.   The female speaking voice is listenable only when it is well-modulated, in a conversational tone.  As good as Laura Ingraham is substituting for O’Reilly she is cursed with a grating conversational voice.   The models for voices and female TV presentation are all on Fox-- Martha McCallum, Shannon Bream…and the best of all, Harris Faulkner, a three-time Emmy winner, the winningest presenter of all who was the first African American winner of the Miss Minnesota title a few years ago.   
       As a matter of fact, since Reagan,  all speeches by men and women come across as more effective when delivered calmly.   Last night on Channel 11 there was a clip of Franklin Roosevelt speaking at the dedication of the Outer Drive Bridge in 1938—the famous “Quarantine the Aggressors” speech.   He shouted it…his head tossed back in patrician style… which was startling given the changes that have occurred in elocution.   Watching it from today’s vantage point, it was bluster and highly ineffective—not what it registered then. 
        In essence Roosevelt was doing a William Jennings Bryan.  The historic style for politicians which lasted from the mid-19th century to Roosevelt, was that of Bryan circa 1893 when he electrified my Irish marble-layer artisan grandfather with the “Cross of Gold” speech at the old Chicago Coliseum.   Intriguingly enough the last pol who tried it didn’t do too badly—JFK at his inaugural where he shouted “let us serve this notice to nations whether they wish us good or ill, that we will pay any price, bear any  burden…” etc. 
       Highly adaptable, Franklin Roosevelt was never excelled when he delivered his Fireside Chats where he spoke as a comforting father to children over the microphone from the Blue Room.  It was that style which Reagan, an old FDR Democrat, took and adopted as his—whether he was speaking in a convention hall or elsewhere.  Even when on the speaker’s stage he was angry, he raised his voice only slightly as “Mr.Green, I paid for this microphone!”      
             Q.  Back to The Donald. Is he poised to take over the Tea Party?
          A. Not on your life.   He has no ruling philosophy whereas the Tea Party has. Trump makes it up as he goes along.   That’s not Tea Party.

1 comment:

  1. Tom,

    Is Trump in it to destroy (yes, premeditated) the Republican chances of becoming POTUS in 2012?