I thought he delivered it well but without any specifics. Leaving out the specifics and concentrating on emotion and personality isn’t a bad idea for a guy who is often confused with a cyborg. So in that sense it was probably a very effective speech. It raised Romney’s likability.
The high point in terms of style and delivery was when he said:
President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet. MY promise…is to help you and your family.
He delivered it magnificently. He paused after the word oceans and let the laughter rumble through the hall. It felt like ten seconds. He paused again after the word planet and let the laughter continue. Another five seconds. Then he looked into the camera and delivered his promise without pause or hesitation or sarcasm. It was very effective.
My only problem with it is that I don’t want or expect the President of the United States to help me or my family. Or other people and their families. Other than that, great line and a great moment. So well executed.
My view that I don’t want the President (or the government) to help me or my family often gets twisted by the left (as Ryan’s libertarian moments in his speech also were) as some kind of anarchism or rugged individualism.
God forbid, if something bad happens to me, I don’t want to be on my own. I want help from family and friends and my religious community and even people who like my blog or my podcast. Or who follow me on Twitter.
Being against government help is not the same as being against any kind of help. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Is the misunderstanding deliberate and malicious or does it just reflect a lack of imagination?
But what about people without friends or family? If government got out of the way, there would be more organizations to help people without friends and family. And we’d be better better friends and better family members if government was less paternalistic.
