Shuster defends questioning NRCC's use of "corrupt Harlem Democrat" to describe Rangel
March 09, 2010 4:35 pm ET
From the March 9 edition of MSNBC Live:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Previously:
















When they scream and yell and send foul e-mails, you know that they know, that they're nailed.
For a fraction of a second, I thought I was going to see a defensive stance, "I'm sorry if I was misunderstood or offended anybody" stance, but no, he simply and briefly recounted what he had said in the first place, and then added examples to support what he had observed (the unusual use of the neighborhood named Harlem to describe Rep. Rangel's District), and in so doing, Mr. Shuster was clear and he spoke in a firm and even loud voice, he articulated his words (they shouldn't come out of your mouth all stuck together like taffy, but should be distinctly said one by one), and he was emphatic about it, especially with "I stand by my reporting and my questioning" of the Harlem reference, and when he did that, he managed to clearly repeat that question again, and noted that the NRCC has declined to respond (if they think the question to be unfair towards them), but they have not.
All of it said in a clear even loud articulated manner, in what I'm sure was a minimum of words, and I'll guess were words written by him, because he spoke them so well.
I like the man, his clear and direct and succinct speaking style is too rare in that otherwise wasteland of a medium.
It suddenly has me wondering why there's not more of that style, when all it takes is a little practice, and some determination, and no real formal study (of diction or debate or whatever) that I know of.
A tape recorder, maybe a mirror too, but mostly the determination to speak clearly and firmly, a little practice, and oh yeah, good copy to read from, best if you've written it yourself.