Republican politician off his box on crystal meth, i think

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhV5RgcNJjE

I guess its political.

[Sasha]

lets me guess, he didnt get his nomination huh?

[ed miliband]

Dude has to get his kicks some way.

[Red Commissar]

It could also be seen as a rendition of a wingnut's blog.

[Crux]

Interview with Phil Davison, the man behind one of the most intense stump speeches ever (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-need/anatomy-of-a-political-freakout-interview-with-phil-davidson/3433/)
By Sal Gentile
September 9th, 201

Updated | 4:50 p.m. Phil Davison is a councilman in the village of Minerva, Ohio, population 3,934. He has four degrees from the University of Akron — two bachelors degrees, in history and sociology, and two masters degrees, in communication and public administration. He’s worked in factories, at the local Target and, for eight years, as a bailiff at the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. He left that position last year, and has been unable to find work since.

“I’m looking for something right now, to see what turns up. I’ve been turned down for minimum wage jobs,” Davison said in an interview from his home in Minerva. He makes a $260-a-week stipend as a village councilman, which adds up to roughly $12,480 a year. “I certainly can’t live on that, but that’s all I’m doing right now.”


That, and running for office. Davison, a lifelong Republican, sought the local party’s nomination for treasurer of Stark County in Ohio on Wednesday night, his third run for countywide office. He has lost all three times. “It’s difficult,” Davison said. “It takes money, and I don’t have much of that.”

But what Davison lacks in funding, he apparently makes up for in passion. His speech to the Stark County Republican Committee Wednesday night was recorded by a local political blogger working for The Huffington Post’s citizen journalism initiative and posted online, where, unsurprisingly, it went viral. Some of the Internet’s most influential political blogs, including MSNBC’s First Read and Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire, posted the video as well.

In his first interview since the video went viral, Davison told Need to Know that he was baffled by all the attention. He wasn’t especially angry when he gave the speech, and nothing in particular had set him off, he said. Afterward, he received a polite reception from the audience, and when he lost the nomination, Davison approached the winner, shook his hand and said “Good luck.”

“Some people call it fanaticism. I call it being a believer,” Davison said. He confessed, though, that some amount of frustration with his personal situation — his inability to find and keep even a minimum-wage job, the crumbling of his youthful ideals into hard-bitten, world-weary pragmatism — may have informed his speech.

“I’m living what I spoke last night,” Davison said. “People are frustrated out there. People want change. I really sense that our country is really looking for people or a party or an idea to get involved with, and I’m one of those people too. I want to get involved. That’s why I ran for treasurer.”

Somehow, like so many meandering twenty-somethings, Davison never quite figured out what he wanted in life. “My career idea was to get out of college and make a difference in people’s lives,” Davison said. “I want to help the people who have nothing. I identify with those people. I’m the son of a mailman. My father was a mailman, my mother worked as a clerk for minimum wage the bulk of her life. And I said, you know, I want to help people who don’t have much. And I got out of college with that idealism, and I said, ‘Let’s see what I can do.’”

Of his situation now, at age 39, he added: “You would think a guy with four college degrees isn’t working blue-collar jobs in factories. And that’s what I’ve done.”

As for his politics, Davison has served as a Republican member of the Minerva Council for 13 years, but, despite the boiling anger that characterized his speech, describes himself as a “liberal.” He also identifies with the activist energy of the Tea Party movement, and proposes forming “a new radical branch of the Republican Party that does bring in the Tea Party activists, and that does bring in, perhaps, liberal Republicans.”

Of the party as a whole, he added: “I think the days of the mainstream Republican need to change.”

What’s next for Davison remains unclear. He’s considering becoming a teacher, he said, to help kids “learn about the world” — “I’m not saying I’m an expert on it,” he cautioned — and to “tell them to ‘follow your dreams. Whatever gets you excited in life, go for it.’”

He wouldn’t foreclose another run for office, either.

“My speech last night — I knew it might be a little over the edge, but that’s how I felt at the time,” Davison said. “If it spurs someone to go on and say, ‘You know what, I want to go up there and talk like that too, I want to make a difference, I want to get involved in my community.’ If it affects one person in a positive way, then it was worth it.”

[Rusty Shackleford]

his masters degree in communication must have been a lie.

this guy has the energy of the next george washington!:rolleyes:

also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE

[NGNM85]

his masters degree in communication must have been a lie.

Shocking he wasn't nominated.


this guy has the energy of the next george washington!:rolleyes:

also:
KDwODbl3muE

This was really unfortunate. It's really a nonevent. The Fox News spin machine blew it out of proportion and suddenly Dean was out of the race. Policy-wise I think he was better than John Kerry. Then they made up the Swift boat controversy which was an even greater masterpiece of propaganda.

[Rusty Shackleford]

This was really unfortunate. It's really a nonevent. The Fox News spin machine blew it out of proportion and suddenly Dean was out of the race. Policy-wise I think he was better than John Kerry. Then they made up the Swift boat controversy which was an even greater masterpiece of propaganda.
whoa there.
i put it up there because it was an over excited bourgeois politician.

i dont give a fuck if whatever dean did was spun by fox.
hes a liberal, they are conservative, they are both bourgeois.


that moment wasnt as unfortunate as it as relevant to the topic of this thread.

[NGNM85]

whoa there.
i put it up there because it was an over excited bourgeois politician.

That was obvious.


i dont give a fuck if whatever dean did was spun by fox.

You should.


hes a liberal, they are conservative, they are both bourgeois.

This kind of reductionist,. one-dimensional thinking is really counterproductive. I am not arguing that we don't have a substantial democratic deficit in this country, or that the two political parties generally serve the interests of the business community. However, while the differences may be few, they are significant. These groups serve different elite constituencies, which effects policy. For example, since World War II the economic growth rates for the American working class have been 2.2% higher under Democrat administrations. That may not sound like much, but that's a lot less families losing their houses, etc. This was further outlined in the recent Princeton study, which shouldn't have been surprising. Now, before you go as mental as Mr. "I have... a masters degree.....IN COMMUNICATIONS!!!" this is not an endorsement of the Democratic party, capitalism, or the US government. These are simple facts, which in no way require one to subscribe to any illusions. Mainstream politics does affect peoples' lives in a very real way. We should be working towards a better system, a better way of life, but ignoring reality is counterproductive, at best. If you care, you can't take that attitude. That's the appropriate attitude for people who want to sit in cafes and appear to be radical, it's also an attitude of indifference to the working class.

Or, in other words;"..in my view the Libertarian movements have been very shortsighted in persuing doctrine in a rigid fashion without being properly concerned about the human consequences. So, it's perfectly proper... the state is an illegitimate institution. But it does not follow from that you should not support the state. Sometimes there is a more illegitimate institution which will take over if you do not support this institution. So, if you're concerned with the people, let's be concrete, let's take the United States. There is a state sector that does awful things, but it also happens to do some good things. As a result of centuries of popular struggle there is a minimal welfare system that provides support for poor mothers and children. That's under attack in an attempt to minimize the state. Well, Anarchists can't seem to understand that they are to support that, so they join with the ultra-right in saying "Yes, we've got to minimize the state." meaning, put more power into the hands of private tyrannies which are completely unaccountable to the public and purely totalitarian.

...If you care about the question of whether seven-year-old children have food to eat, you'll support the state sector at this point, recognizing in the long term it's illegitimate. ...In fact, protecting the state sector today is a step towards abolishing the state because it maintains a public arena in which people can participate, and organize, and affect policy, and so on, though, in limited ways. If that's removed we'd go back to a...dictatorship, or a private dictatorship, but that's hardly a step towards liberation."
-Chomsky, "Anarchism, Intellectuals, and the State", 1996




that moment wasnt as unfortunate as it as relevant to the topic of this thread.

It was both. The worst part is how easy it was. However, the campaign against John Kerry was a greater accomplishment of propaganda.