Okay, here's the speech teacher's score: C-My score this time around is based almost entirely on delivery. I have to confess that I have quit paying much attention to the content of State of the Union addresses, because they are usually little more than forgettable laundry lists of unrealistic proposals.
Here are my delivery observations:
He is better than he used to be. He used to really herky-jerky. It's still there, but not as pronounced. There were brief moments of clarity and gravity, glimpses of cadence and intensity; but overall the speech was incredibly uneven.
He is uncomfortable in the rostrum. This guy does not want to be there. I'm not talking about the presidency, he very much wants to be there. But he is not an orator, and these events are not pleasant for him. He does not enjoy the spoken word.
The speech is not his. He didn't write it; but more importantly, he has never owned it. Presidents don't write their own speeches anymore, of course, but some go to great lengths to make the speech theirs (see Reagan and Clinton). This is a speech assembled by bureaucrats that could never find its rhythm. He is anchored to the teleprompters. He turns his head before his eyes are ready to leave the security of the plexiglass manuscript. Watch him when he finishes a phrase that invites applause. He doesn't lean into it, because it doesn't belong to him. He is not offering something of himself to his audience, he is simply serving as a vehicle for a broad set of ideas. When he finishes those phrases, and the applause begins, he appears relieved that it is over for a few seconds. Eager speakers get impatient with the applause because they want to get on to the really good stuff.
The old smugness is still there. Again, not as bad as before, but the smirk and wink business persists. Here's one thing that will always prevent him from appearing to be a statesman or grand orator: opposition pisses him off, and it shows. He has no respect for disagreement. This hardly makes him unique, but he allows it to color his rhetoric. It visibly disturbs him when people don't stand to applaud for him and his ideas. Consequently, when he talks about bipartisanship and unified goals, it all falls flat.
I swear if I hear him say, "nucular" one more time, I may resign from the assiociation of English-speaking humans.
His handlers are not getting him ready. Maybe that's as good as it can get, but the best it can get is a C- from me.
Why do I care? Because speech matters. Sure, policies and actions are more important, but when you are the Chief Orator, the public and history look to you to shape the way we talk about things of importance. When you reveal in your rhetoric that you have no tolerance for dissent, and that any effort you make toward dialogue is little more than a chimera of the worst order, you do a disservice to all who aspire to democracy.
Oh, by the way, please save us the irony of eulogizing Coretta Scott King in the same speech that you declare the rightward shift of the Supreme Court.
48 comments:
As I recall, Justice Kennedy was supposed to move the Court to the right and last time I checked, he was firmly planted on the left side of the middle. Don't rush to judgement.
No comment on the differences in character and oratory skills of Clinton and Bush. Both are obvious.
For those who dislike President Bush for what he stands for, or for his failings as an orator, take heart. I offer you this quote from Winston Churchill, one of the great orators of the 20th century. I believe it was shortly after the German disaster at Stalingrad, that Churchill uttered these words (quoted from memory): "This is not the end. Nor is it the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."
Huh?
Ditto to what you said Reacher.
You are undoubtedly more of a professional, well-trained observer of the nuance of public speaking than I. However, I'm not too shabby at interpretation of body language and know that everytime I watch the man speak, I walk away with the feeling that his posture, gestures, facial expressions, etc, never match or enhance his message. I hear one thing with my ears and something entirely different with my eyes. And you're right on target with catching his lack of tolerance for dissent. He can't seem to mask that to save his life.
Overall, I have to abstain from grading though, as I fell asleep halfway through. (Riveting, I tell you!!!) Too many 12 hour work days around here lately...
P.S. Hate to point out errors, but you posted a pic of the wrong President with this entry. It was the other one that spoke last night.
heehee
Better to be uncomfortable in the rostrum than uncomfortable in the restroom, I always say.
Especially if you're herky-jerky.
Sorry.
Somebody help me.
I thought the hokey-pokey was what it was all about.
If i'm bladder shy, does that make me a bad person?
Did the reacher post a photo of the wrong president? That doesn't sound like the reacher.
Maybe it's a photo of the presidential ventriloquist. I don't think Cheney likes dissent either.
No, it's the right picture.
It's like a visual paraphrase of that quote my mother used to place on her desk at work:
"Do you want to talk to the man in charge or the woman who really knows what is going on?"
Some day, God willing, another Democrat will be elected President and then things'll be great. You know, kill babies, raise taxes, save baby seals.
I've thought, since he's been in the national media, that he hasn't gotten better because he doesn't like opposition.
I've heard rumors that he expelled liberal reporters who didn't write good things about him. His attitude during the debates made him appear pompous and arrogant. When I watch Scott McClellan, I think he's scared to death that he's going to be sent to Iraq if he screws up.
It just seems that he doesn't want to do the things it takes to get better. I want to like him. I really do. My dad likes him. People I associate with everyday like him. I just can't make that jump and say that I like him.
Put down the Kool-Aid, Anon. The most dramatic decrease in abortion rates since Roe in 1973 occurred during the last Democratic administration. And, last I checked, this Republican administration has grown the size of the government and federal deficit far beyond the days of budgetary surplus in the last administration.
Of course, we wouldn't want to do anything to help baby seals. God no. If we could just get back to the days when we capriciously bashed their heads in for sport and profit...that would be great.
Young Reacher,
I sense the force is strong within you...
Given the last Democratic administration's support of abortion, it seems most likely that the decrease in abortion rates had more to do with a shift in society's view regarding abortion. In light of the technology now available, this is understandable. I would be hesitant to applaud the Clinton administration for any decrease in abortion rates.
With regard to the budget, this government growth has been disappointing to witness. It would appear the budget surplus of the late 90s was the happy result of the conflict between a Republican congress and a Democratic president. Who knew? Again, I would be hesitant to applaud the Clinton administration for any budget surplus.
With regard to baby seals, sources close to the senator tell me that Hillary Rodham Clinton dines on underage seal steaks at least once a week, and has been working with the Inuits to market seal skin lampshades. It seems human skin lampshades are no longer in vogue.
And what did I say about Alito? First decision, sides w/the left. Relax. Everything will be okay.
I can only applaude you, Reacher, for being able to listen to that man. I can't even watch a 30 second news blip with him. I have opted for the ignorance is bliss state for the past five years. It's doing me well, thus far.
I'm kinda with Heather. I didn't even know the SOTUA was going to be on that night. I probably watch an hour or less of tv per week, and listen to the radio even less frequently. I would make a poor debater or politician. I'm much more interested in reading history than i am in current events. Maybe because speculation and prediction hurts my brain.
I'm kind of losing hope in democracy in general (although not in favor of communism). Too many competing, self-centered opinions and agendas for me to take any of it seriously anymore. I'd rather go back to Egypt than deal with the human ego.
I didn't watch it in protest. :)
But I did read analyses and recaps of what he said and I'm glad I didn't watch it. It would have just made me laugh and get angry at the same time. Delivery has NEVER been Dubya's strong point.
I listened to it on the radio. He seemed to have trouble with his pacing. It was as if he would be all set to get in rhythm and then he'd skip a beat unintentionally.
I'm so grateful for the play by play analysis, and actually pretty impressed with a C- rating from you. I too listened on the radio, but not that closely. I would give a lot of whatever I have to hear our Chief orator calling out Mr. Gorbachev with Peggy Noonan's words, infused with his own passion. Last weekend I heard a speaker say that our commitments lead us to purpose which leads to a focus that leads to passion. Where is our Chief committed? There isn't much displayed passion trailing back to those commitments. This thought and other frustrations I've been experiencing lately in the "corporate" world bring me back to the importance of speech, communication, and servant leadership. It's just not enough anymore to "say" and not "do".
Reacher,
How can you and you're sycophants even keep a straight face saying that "opposition pisses him off"? The man has shown more restraint over the last six years to a continued barrage of baseless charges than most could in a lifetime. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not implying he's without blame, far from it. But the man shows tolerance beyond measure. If not wincing when someone maligns you is the new measure of tolerance, than I guess that is why I do not subscribe to the "intentions matter more than actions" outlook on life. The man even shows restraint as the most useless president in US history takes opportunity at a hero's eulogy to try and prop up the futile reshaping of his image. Stick to building houses, chump! His oppostion doesn't even understand the definition of Nazi, fascism, colonialist, etc. and yet they throw it around with no opposition.
Reacher, I know you and you are smarter than that comment makes you out to be, with all due respect. Do not let your dislike for the man shape you.
Otherwise, a good review of his speech. You are correct. He is an abysmal public speaker, but he is tolerant.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Sincerely,
You're right-wing nut job down the street.
Interesting take on Bush as tolerant. From where I sit, opposition grates on him, and it drives him crazy that he has to act civil in response to it. His appreciation for democratic pluralism is nonexistent. Any appearance of it is just that: an appearance. Of course, when he's off camera he just ignores it and defies the will of reasonable people.
Show me an example of where Bush met with detractors (or members of the international community) and adopted a perspective that was not part of his predetermined agenda.
I'm with you on the Jimmy Carter comments at the funeral. Everyone who used the opportunity for political gain was out of line. It was unfortunate, and deserves criticism.
However, to deal with that event by ad hominem attacks (the talking points of which I've heard verbatim from a variety of other right wing nut jobs) against a former president who more fully embodies the faith you possess than any in modern history is to cheapen any claim to the high ground.
Reacher,
We'll certainly have to agree to disagree. That point is painfully obvious. For I feel Bush's most controversial move, i.e. the Iraq war, was done only after extensive meeting w/distractors. The fact that he did not capitulate to the corrupt U.N. and instead chose to fullfill what he felt were his obligations of protecting national sovereignty and security.....does NOT make him intolerat. Tolerance is NOT always giving in.
As for Jimmy Carter's faith. Well, no man knows the heart of another man. That includes you and the heart of George Bush. (You're pretty good at making assumptions of him and launchin ad hominem attacks against him, and his faith). I could bore you with what I believe to be a large laundry list of why I'm prone to seriously doubt Mr. Carter's sincerity. But, only God knows. I will say this, placidly walking by as evil happens does not make you more of a Christian than one who responds to it with force. Sorry to step on your toes, Progressives.
Sorry to step on your toes, Progressives.
Ah! I have been stricken dumb by these blindingly devastating points! The liberal facade crumbles beneath the weight of its unassailable logic, all brought home with a forceful zinger! My toes, my effete toes!
Good music the other night, Reacher and Jody. Sorry i couldn't stay long. Keep it real. See ya 'round.
Well, I suppose Mr. Anonymous may have millions of reasons to seriously doubt Carter's faith. Fine.
And of course it's easy to have a laundry list of reasons you don't share. Just like not sharing your identity but making it clear your down the street and taking notes on what car people drive.
For people who aren't busy doubting Carter's faith and motivations, I recommend his book, "Why not the best?"
I hear it's a very inspirational work.
So Reacher,
In reaching back to some previous posts and comments in other threads, what do you say to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings about costly vs. cheap grace? From what I read, President Bush seeks God's direction in making decisions. Whether he hears clearly or not is open to debate (sometimes I wonder how clearly I hear, and my decisions do not normally affect millions of lives). I don't sense a lot of grace from you towards W.
Here is Bonhoeffer's writing on grace, slightly edited for brevity w/o changing the tone:
Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace.
Cheap grace means grace as a doctrine, a principle, a system. It means forgiveness of sins proclaimed as a general truth, the love of God taught as the Christian "conception" of God. An intellectual assent to that idea is held to be of itself sufficient to secure remission of sins. The Church which holds the correct doctrine of grace has, it is supposed, ipso facto a part in that grace. In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin. Cheap grace therefore amounts to a denial of the living Word of God, in fact, a denial of the Incarnation of the Word of God.
Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the Cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.
Costly grace is the treasure hidden in the field; for the sake of it a man will gladly go and sell all that he has. It is the call of Jesus Christ at which the disciple leaves his nets and follows Him.
Costly grace is the Gospel which must be sought again and again, the gift which must be asked for, the door at which a man must knock.
Such grace is costly because it calls us to follow, and it is grace because it calls us to follow Jesus Christ. It is costly because it costs a man his life, and it is grace because it gives a man the only true life. It is costly because it condemns sin, and grace because it justifies the sinner. Above all, it is costly because it costs God the life of His Son... and what has cost God much cannot be cheap for us. Above all, it is grace because God did not reckon His Son too dear a price to pay for our life, but deliver Him up for us. Costly grace is the Incarnation of God.
Costly grace is the santuary of God; it has to be protected from the world, and not thrown to the dogs. It is therefore the living word, the Word of God, which He speaks as it pleases Him. Costly grace confronts us as a gracious call to follow Jesus, it comes as a word of forgiveness to the broken spirit and the contrite heart. Grace is costly because it compels a man to submit to the yoke of Christ and follow Him; it is grace because Jesus says: "My yoke is easy and My burden light."
Cheez,
I have NO idea what Bonhoeffer's doctrine of grace has to do with this thread. But, it is interesting that you declare de facto that Bush consults God. Maybe because his conclusions coincide with yours? Does Carter consult God?
While your Bonhoeffer reference is a non sequitur, it is interesting that, in this context, you choose to reference a guy who was hanged for conspiring to assassinate his national leader.
Reacher,
It has nothing to do w/this thread. See the previous disclaimer; it was a reach.
It is my understanding, based on what I've read, that Bush consults God. Who truly knows, aside from God? Nor did I imply in any way that Jimmy Carter does or does not consult God. Nor do my conclusions always coincide with President Bush's. Sometimes dey do, sometimes dey don't.
My Bonhoeffer reference was reaching back to a previous discussion we had regarding the doctrine of grace. Given what was known inside Germany of the true nature of the NSDAP, it is possible to argue (I'm not, by the way) that Bonhoeffer was trying to do God's work. I'm a little surprised that your activist brand of Christianity doesn't embrace a man who actively tried to put a stop to evil.
I'm not taking a position on Bonhoeffer, I'm simply pointing out that you are critical of me for criticizing the President, presumably because I am not showing grace, then you lay out a doctrine of grace authored by a guy who did far more than criticize his leader.
I'm confused.
My problem is an inability to let go of some of your comments in a previous thread regarding grace. What is adultery, what is pedophilia, etc. So, to be intellectually honest, Bonhoeffer's writing on grace probably really doesn't belong here. I shall endeavor to remain more focused in the future.
You don't seem to show the sitting president the grace you are seemingly prepared to show a pedophile (assuming we can agree on a definition). From my perspective the grace SEEMS conditional.
And here's what really bothers me: your version of grace appears to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) to be a passport to license. Don't misunderstand me- I do not believe grace should be conditional. I do, however, believe that grace comes with expectations. Expectations from the Lord, not from us. It's the whole cheap grace vs. costly grace posted earlier. The whole "go and sin no more" angle.
So Cheez, Jesus says, "My yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Is that costly grace or cheap grace?
You seem to be talking about conditional grace, grace that comes with expectations. Expectations from God.
If the expectations are from God, then what do they have to do with you? How do you determine whether or not someone is living up to God's expectations or not?
Are you God's intermediary here when it comes to Grace?
It seems like you're saying that the Reacher is taking grace a bit too far. Is that so?
I don't want to take grace too far. I just want to take it all the way...
...until the wheels fall off and burn...until the seat covers fade and the water mocassins die out...
Personally, I believe the God of our current administration to be nothing but the glorified ad campaign of a crafty, well-oiled, deep pocketed political machine created and sustained to emotionally manipulate the--shall we say conservative?--voters of our country. And what do you know? It's working to perfection.
It takes more than the inclusion of words like "pray" and "God bless America" in every speech to convince me of righteousness. Action has much greater sway with me than empty rhetoric.
Paul spends a lot of time outlining a healthy, God-pleasing lifestyle for us. The "anything goes" mentality is not Biblical. We are told not to conform to this world but to be transformed.
To answer your question, no, I don't think you are "taking grace a bit too far." I just think you are forgetting voluminous other passages that establish standards which we are to follow. And to deny that, to remove those boundaries from the lives of those who need to know them, is ultimately unloving. Have you ever seen a parent who's a classic enabler? It's always to the child's detriment, isn't it?
Mr. Cheez:
I don't think I've seen the Reacher or anyone else here advocating an "anything goes mentality." Of course, maybe I've missed something.
However, your talk of parents who are classic enablers leaves me with another big question. Who is the parent here: you or God?
I'd also like to draw your attention to the words of one of Pope Benedict's favorite theologians:
God is my friend
Jesus is my friend
He made this world for us to live in, and gave us everything
And all he asks of us is we give each other love....
Don't go and talk about my father
Cause God is my friend
Jesus is my friend
He loves us whether or not we know it
Just loves us, oh ya
And He'll forgive all our sins
Forgive all our sins
And all He asks of us, is we give each other love.
Oh ya
Love your mother, she bore you
Love your father, he works for you
Love your sister, she's good to you
Love your brother, your brother
Don't go and talk about my father, He's good to us,
God is my friend
Jesus is my friend
For when we call in Him for mercy, Mercy Father
He'll be merciful, my friend
Oh, yes He will
All he asks of us, I know, is we give each other love,
The speech wasn't very interesting, to say the least (so i've heard). So we're back to theology, eh? Fascinating.
Sometimes we box at the air, completely missing one another's intentions and points. Ahh, the importance of empathy and listening. Guess that's why i got a degree in Communication... guess that's why Reacher is teaching it. Way to go, Reach.
Ocho,
Don't shoot me; I'm just the messenger. Talk to Paul.
And it seems fair to axe: who's the enabler here, you or God?
I'm not shooting you. I'm asking you a question that you're dodging.
Neither I nor God are enabling anyone.
Do questions make you uncomfortable when you can't twist Paul's words to speak for you?
By the way Cheez, if you're going to be the messenger, then you should get the message right
Ocho,
I'm not dodging anything, nor am I twisting Paul's words. I am also not playing God. The Bible is very clear that there are standards of behavior to which we are to aspire. My entire point is we cannot disregard those standards because we think they infringe upon someone's freedom, or bruise someone's conscience.
The original Greek for the word "judge" in the link you provided means to condemn or judge. I'm not condemning anyone. I am lifting up God's standards and calling christians to a holier, purer life. Will God condemn us if we fall short? Of course not. Does He want us to try to live more holy? I think the Bible says that He does. And it's for our benefit.
Thanks for the Greek lesson. Now tell me something I don't know.
You're not condemning anybody?
You could have fooled me.
I can't comment on what you don't know.
Tell me this: what is it about Paul's teachings regarding living a holy life that gets under your skin?
What is it about the idea that some things are just plain sin, and just plain wrong, that bothers you so?
And no, I'm not condemning anyone. I do wonder why you seem so hostile. I'm not sure what I've written that's so offensive, except for the idea that sin is sin and we shouldn't ignore it.
Look , there's nothing getting under my skin besides your condescending and judgmental attitude.
What is it about grace that bothers you?
Or, Mr. Cheez, if I may phrase my response differently, why is your attraction to legalism so strong?
So what is it about sin that's bugging you? Why are you avoiding that question?
Where am I condescending and judgemental? In saying that some things are wrong? Because if there are no absolutes then there is no sin. Why are you labeling me? I would have thought "tolerance" would be one of your buzz words.
My favorite book of the past ten years is Yancey's "What's so amazing about grace?", so I would not say that anything about grace bothers me. It does bother me when some refuse to admit that there are some things that are unwise, unhealthy and wrong.
I don't make it my business to point out someone's sin to them. I have enough problems of my own. I don't, however, blindly convince myself that their sin is not sin because it's not my place to judge. And if they come to me and ask what I think, I will be honest w/them. I think that is the right and loving thing to do.
And with that, I must shake the dust from my birkenstocks.
Yesterday James Taranto's Wall Street Journal Online column carried an item about an article that appeared in Atlanta's Creative Loafing tabloid newspaper. The article detailed an interview with former (thank God) president Jimmy Carter. Read for yourself --- and stand back in amazement at the absurdity of this man who has never seen a dictator he didn't like; a man who once occupied our The Oval Office; a man whom the voters overwhelmingly rejected after just four years --- Jimmy Carter, our biggest national mistake:
I was teaching a Sunday school class two weeks ago," he recalls. "A girl, she was about 16 years old from Panama City [Fla.], asked me about the differences between Democrats and Republicans.
"I asked her, 'Are you for peace, or do you want more war?' Then I asked her, 'Do you favor government helping the rich, or should it seek to help the poorest members of society? Do you want to preserve the environment, or do you want to destroy it? Do you believe this nation should engage in torture, or should we condemn it? Do you think each child today should start life responsible for $28,000 in [federal government] debt, or do you think we should be fiscally responsible?'
"I told her that if she answered all of those questions, that she believed in peace, aiding the poor and weak, saving the environment, opposing torture . . . then I told her, 'You should be a Democrat.' "
Say no more...here is this icon of the Liberal Christian's exposing his "faith" and "tolerance" for what it is.
The right wing nut job.
Post a Comment