The Nominating Speech
Recommendation of himself by a candidate for office does not fall within the plan of this book. Students, however, may indulge in canvassing votes for their favorite candidates, and this in some instances, leads to public speaking in class and mass meetings, assemblies, and the like.
Of similar import is the nominating speech in which a member of a society, committee, meeting, offers the name of his candidate for the votes of as many as will indorse him. In nominating, it is a usual trick of arrangement to give first all the qualifications of the person whose election is to be urged, advancing all reasons possible for the choice, and uttering his name only in the very last words of the nominating speech. This plan works up to a cumulative effect which should deeply impress the hearers at the mention of the candidate's name.
In nominating speeches and in arguments supporting a candidate the deliverer should remember two things. Constructive proof is better than destructive attack; assertion of opinion and personal preference is not proof. If it seems necessary at times to show the fitness of one candidate by contrast with another, never descend to personalities, never inject a tone of personal attack, of cheap wit, of ill-natured abuse. If such practices are resorted to by others, answer or disregard them with the courteous attention they deserve, no more.
"Constructive proof is better than destructive attack; assertion of opinion and personal preference is not proof."
Do not allow yourself to be drawn into any discussion remote from the main issue—the qualifications of your own candidate. If you speak frequently upon such a theme—as you may during an extended campaign—notice which of your arguments make the strongest impressions upon the hearers. Discard the weaker ones to place more and more emphasis upon the convincing reasons. Never fail to study other speakers engaged in similar attempts. American life every day provides you with illustrations to study.