The most brilliant decision you guys made in 1996 was to jump on Bob Dole's poetic concept of being a bridge to a better past. And though I still think the notion of "building a bridge to the 21st century" is utterly ridiculous--you don't need a bridge to something that comes upon you inexorably--it was a devastating political play.
Among the many signs of disaster here was that "Kennedy and Liberal Night" indicates the Democrats are this year seeking to build a bridge to the past as well. Trying to remind people of a high-water mark 40 years ago is, I think, political insanity--as Republicans learned from the Dole speech. The very fact that your fellow Democrats are still thrilling over Clinton's speech is another species of this. Sorry to tell you, but Clinton's speech did Gore no good, no good whatsoever. The bipartisan Battleground Poll indicates that not only hasn't Gore gotten a bounce--he's actually sunk three points since yesterday.
I'm happy you're having a good time. Honestly. You should enjoy it while you can, because I think things are going to be changing in Washington come November.</?xml:namespace>
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Reaction to Monday's entry]
Perhaps the reason Gore wants it to be known that he is writing his own speech is that he wants to focus on the content rather than presentation. (Yes, I know that would be revolutionary and possibly seditious.)
As a minor official who has written speeches for others, for myself and occasionally read speeches written by others, I believe the best person to write a speech is the person who best knows what needs to be said (not necessarily the same thing as who knows the most). Gore is trying to say that he is his own man, not mouthing the words others have prepared, and if the result is less felicitous and ear-catching than the work of true professionals, does that really matter?
--David
(To reply, click
here.)
Er, a defendant has a right to a lawyer to defend him because the power of the state is being directed against him. A politician has no right to a speechwriter because the politician is trying to seize the power of the state (at least part of it) and people deserve to know what he/she thinks. We've already got too many courtroom analogies in politics anyway--but just because most politicians ought to be on trial nowadays doesn't mean that they are, in all respects, entitled to the protections that defendants get. Presumption of innocence, for example, exists because the state has the burden of proving someone guilty. But in elections, politicians have the burden of showing themselves worthy. Few in recent experience have met this burden.
--Daniel Webster
(To reply, click
here.)
It's not true that only Lincoln could write his own speeches. So could Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and jumping ahead and across the pond, Churchill and many others. And the issue is not just speeches. Some statesmen have actually been able to craft state papers and diplomatic correspondence themselves.
This is not to say that important documents--and that can include political speeches--should never be collaborative works. Of course they should be. Washington frequently relied on Madison and Hamilton, among others, in his writings. (Of, course, they also were statesmen, not mere scribblers).
The common lament is that modern presidents have too much to do; so overwhelmed are they that they could never write their own speeches or correspondence. This is baloney. Lincoln managed to run a nation at war with a million-man army in the field while managing to write most of his own stuff with the help of a few trusted cabinet members and his two secretaries. And Churchill managed to run a nation at war with bombs falling over his own head, while dictating elaborate memos to colleagues, letters to FDR and other foreign counterparts and speeches to parliament, among other documents. Much of what consumes the modern president's time is a constant stream of photo ops, political meetings and appearances and fundraising
--Publius
(To reply, click
here.)
Anyone who attempts to justify his or her profession by likening it to being a lawyer, as John Podhoretz does, is surely treading in murky ethical waters.
--Jeff Brunswick
(To reply, click
here.)
[Reaction to Tuesday's entry]
As all of us who follow politics--including Mr. Podhoretz--know very very well indeed, the same arguments made by Bentsen, Rubin, Tyson, Blinder, Summers, Panetta and company had been previously made to Reagan and Bush by senior Reagan and Bush administration officials like Stockman, Feldstein, Darman, and Shultz. They were correct during the Clinton Administration. They had been correct during the Bush Administration. And they had been correct during the Reagan Administration.
The difference is that--unlike his two predecessors--Clinton had the brains to understand these arguments and the guts to follow through on them.
--Brad DeLong
(To reply, click
here.)
[Reaction to Wednesday's entry]
As a native Los Angeleno, a barbie worshiper, bleached blonde, and a chronic surfer I say to Mr. John Podhoretz:
Welcome to L.A. Now Go Home.
--Candi F.
(To reply, click
here.)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Obama's Small Masterpiece of a Speech at Fort Hood
Can Death Row Convicts Have Whatever They Want for Their Last Meal?
Does Rupert Murdoch Really Hate Google?
The Crops That Are Secretly Terrible for the Planet
The Three Kinds of Liberals Who Could Bring Down the Health Care Bill
Short Sayings That Make Me Happy
Reader Comments from The Fray:
[Reaction to Monday's entry]
Perhaps the reason Gore wants it to be known that he is writing his own speech is that he wants to focus on the content rather than presentation. (Yes, I know that would be revolutionary and possibly seditious.)
As a minor official who has written speeches for others, for myself and occasionally read speeches written by others, I believe the best person to write a speech is the person who best knows what needs to be said (not necessarily the same thing as who knows the most). Gore is trying to say that he is his own man, not mouthing the words others have prepared, and if the result is less felicitous and ear-catching than the work of true professionals, does that really matter?
--David
(To reply, click here.)
Er, a defendant has a right to a lawyer to defend him because the power of the state is being directed against him. A politician has no right to a speechwriter because the politician is trying to seize the power of the state (at least part of it) and people deserve to know what he/she thinks. We've already got too many courtroom analogies in politics anyway--but just because most politicians ought to be on trial nowadays doesn't mean that they are, in all respects, entitled to the protections that defendants get. Presumption of innocence, for example, exists because the state has the burden of proving someone guilty. But in elections, politicians have the burden of showing themselves worthy. Few in recent experience have met this burden.
--Daniel Webster
(To reply, click here.)
It's not true that only Lincoln could write his own speeches. So could Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison and jumping ahead and across the pond, Churchill and many others. And the issue is not just speeches. Some statesmen have actually been able to craft state papers and diplomatic correspondence themselves.
This is not to say that important documents--and that can include political speeches--should never be collaborative works. Of course they should be. Washington frequently relied on Madison and Hamilton, among others, in his writings. (Of, course, they also were statesmen, not mere scribblers).
The common lament is that modern presidents have too much to do; so overwhelmed are they that they could never write their own speeches or correspondence. This is baloney. Lincoln managed to run a nation at war with a million-man army in the field while managing to write most of his own stuff with the help of a few trusted cabinet members and his two secretaries. And Churchill managed to run a nation at war with bombs falling over his own head, while dictating elaborate memos to colleagues, letters to FDR and other foreign counterparts and speeches to parliament, among other documents. Much of what consumes the modern president's time is a constant stream of photo ops, political meetings and appearances and fundraising
--Publius
(To reply, click here.)
Anyone who attempts to justify his or her profession by likening it to being a lawyer, as John Podhoretz does, is surely treading in murky ethical waters.
--Jeff Brunswick
(To reply, click here.)
[Reaction to Tuesday's entry]
As all of us who follow politics--including Mr. Podhoretz--know very very well indeed, the same arguments made by Bentsen, Rubin, Tyson, Blinder, Summers, Panetta and company had been previously made to Reagan and Bush by senior Reagan and Bush administration officials like Stockman, Feldstein, Darman, and Shultz. They were correct during the Clinton Administration. They had been correct during the Bush Administration. And they had been correct during the Reagan Administration.
The difference is that--unlike his two predecessors--Clinton had the brains to understand these arguments and the guts to follow through on them.
--Brad DeLong
(To reply, click here.)
[Reaction to Wednesday's entry]
As a native Los Angeleno, a barbie worshiper, bleached blonde, and a chronic surfer I say to Mr. John Podhoretz:
Welcome to L.A. Now Go Home.
--Candi F.
(To reply, click here.)