Replies

The powerful image of the empty chair,
and a resounding “we own this country”.
These two things will survive.
These messages got through the noise,
into our common memory.

Much has been said about the style.
It was intentional. This is an expert.
Not his first day.

The use of silence made us perk up and listen, and made us
a little uncomfortable. Silence is terrifying in these venues,
both for the speaker, and the audience. He used that.

The tension was relieved in laugh out loud remarks.
How often does that happen in pol speeches?
Laughed out loud, we did.

Eastwood had to deal with the genuine “phoniness” issue as an actor. Had to convince the people he was not just acting, not playing a role.

He nailed that by not being slick and polished, by having the guts to let the silent moments hang a little too long, by not delivering lines in a practiced, rote manner.

It came across as an unrehearsed, unguarded, honest conversation between friends in a small room.

The result?
Not one person has questioned his sincerity.
The unanimity on this is remarkable.
He meant what he said.
Came to us as if from an old friend.

Finally,a third thing on the directed message.
Time to consider, just maybe, we have to let the guy go for not doing the job.
No hate, bigotry, ideology there, just plain common sense.

These thoughts resonate to real folks still on the fence, the only folks we need to speak to.
***********

I believe that this will become a standard for “great speech”, that the future common refrain will be to compare speeches to this, because of the effect it will have in the long run.

“needs more Eastwood”

It was a great speech, a great moment.