Republican comments about the President’s State of the Union speech demonstrated the weakness of one candidate running for his party’s nomination.
Ted Cruz described the speech as not the “State of the Union,” but a “State of Denial.” Agree or disagree, it expresses criticism in a complete thought. Marco Rubio made a multi-sentence criticism which was understandable. Agree or disagree.
Another candidate shunned nouns and verbs; he avoided sentences completely. He spouted adjectives, the list of which never seems to end: “boring, slow, lethargic, rambling, very hard to watch…”
The impressions derived from using adjectives are the same in writing as in speech: (1) This candidate complained about the speech as he, alone, reacted to it. (2) Using adjectives means he has no nouns and verbs to formulate policy. (3) He said nothing about the substance of the President’s speech, no matter how boring it was. (4) This candidate has no position, except adjectives to modify, about the speech or any issue until it seeps into his brain, stirs neurons and wheels finally turn – a week, a month or a year later.
Politics requires an immediate reaction to speeches and circumstances offered. In the House of Commons 150 years ago Gladstone pontificated about something, and he directed a dig at Disraeli opposite: “…only Jews and imbeciles go there.” Disraeli stood and offered his arm to Gladstone so they could leave the Commons to go to the destination.
This candidate mired in adjectives is too retarded and old to have the facility to make circumstances his own.