[tweetmeme]

President Barack Obama had to think, at some point during Wednesday’s State of the Union remarks: “Just think of the speech I could’ve given.”

If only the Democrats in Washington had done a few things differently — if only they had adopted more modest goals, or not paused to wait in an attempt to achieve bipartisanship, or just scheduled their return to Washington on the week before the Massachusetts special election — the speech President Obama could’ve presented would mark a triumph of a century of liberal thought about society and the way we care for each other. A new nationalized system of government-run health care would be a major step on the path toward the utopian aims of spread-the-wealth progressivism, an aim beloved since the days of Bray and Polanyi — a mishmash of plans, ugly and clunky, but still, a plan.

Instead, those troublesome Massachusetts voters wrecked the whole thing, and a speech that should have been a soaring triumph was turned into a 70-minute Scolding of the Union.

The happiest listeners were those who tuned in to learn about what horrible things George W. Bush did in the last year — at least they left those 70 minutes satisfied. As Clive Crook of The Atlantic has noted, Obama “followed James Carville’s bad advice in Monday’s Financial Times, dwelling at length on his poisoned inheritance. On CNN, Carville said the speech was wonderful.”

Health care went unmentioned until the 53rd paragraph of the President’s speech, and he offered little except one more urging to pass the legislation. Perhaps the truth is that he doesn’t have a lot to say at this point — given an opportunity to lead on health care reform, to set a definitive path in the wake of Scott Brown’s election, he punted. If a popular president is unwilling to lead on a matter that holds such enormous ramifications for a litany of centrist Democrats in the Senate and House, it sends a signal to those members, and they are taking the cue:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said health care reform “is on life support, unfortunately,” and the president should have been more specific with how Democrats should move forward.

“He should have been more clear, and I am hoping that in the next week or two he will because that is what it is going to take if it is at all possible to get it done,” Landrieu told reporters. “Mailing in general suggestions, sending them over the transom, is not necessarily going to work.”

The president’s criticism of the Senate in the speech was “a little strange, a little odd,” Landrieu said.

“Moderate Senate Democrats, who give the Senate the 60 votes, come from states that have to appreciate a broad range of ideas,” Landrieu said. For a president who ran on post-partisan platform, “it doesn’t do a great service to then say everything the House caucus passes without Republican votes, the Senate should take. It is the reverse.”

So where do we go next on health care?  The zombie House and Senate health care bills — wandering the earth, neither dead nor alive — would cost in excess of $2 trillion over the next decade, even as President Obama renewed his commitment to cut the deficit. His own CMS director has demonstrated that they would increase, not decrease, health care spending, and they would not improve the quality of care.

Something originally conceived as a life preserver for small businesses is now a burdensome bill which would result in so many taxes, fines and mandates — nearly all breaking the president’s promises during the campaign, of course — that it would stifle a recovery and threaten to unbalance an already unsteady economy.

This was, in many ways, Obama’s malaise speech — chiding a displeased nation for setting their expectations too high, and telling us we would need to do a lot of this “change” ourselves; blasting a Supreme Court for their recent decisions on campaign restrictions Obama glided past in his own multi-million dollar campaign for the White House; wagging his finger at Republicans who, now that they have a paper-thin one vote margin to block some of the president’s plans, are apparently expected to govern as equals. If you’re going to boil Obama’s message last night down to one phrase, consider the slogan from one Homer Simpson of Springfield in his race for sanitation commissioner: “Can’t Someone Else Do It?”

This was a State of the Union focused on trying to regain control of the narrative after a year wasted in an attempt to pass a health care bill few Americans support and even fewer understand — not solving problems, and certainly not leading.

If only President Obama had a chance to give that victory speech. He is awfully good at those.

This piece originally appeared at Health Care News.

So the best attacks the Democrats can muster against Sarah Palin’s epic speech is a twin version of the same spiel:

1) Sarah Palin did not write her speech. 2) Sarah Palin did not talk about education or health care in her speech.

Ha-ha. /Nelson

The first attack is just silly on its face. Every politician with national stature has speechwriters – every single one. They have a press secretary or a communications director or even someone whose sole task it is to craft words that will achieve the right message in a powerful way. Not all politicians are great writers – some are – but all of them need help in framing their message correctly.

Even Barack Obama. His muse is a 26 year old white kid nicknamed “Favs.” The NYTimes profiled him here.

You mean…even The One DOESN’T WRITE HIS OWN SPEECHES! gasp Yes, sadly, it’s true.

The second attack is a creature of the Sixties-21st Century divide that I noted yesterday, in this post about post-feminism politics, in which apparently Republican women should behave the way that the leftist media believes they should – sticking to soft and homey issues. Instead, Palin spoke forcefully about the kitchen table issues that matter just as much, if not more, to most blue collar and middle class Americans: energy, taxes, and the war. She’s a mother, yes, and has a PTA background – but that doesn’t mean she only has thoughts about the issues the post-sexual revolution media still views as “girl stuff.”

Speechwriting is an odd task, and extremely challenging. But it can also be very rewarding – last night, as Sarah Palin gave her speech, I saw Matt Scully looking up toward the press section on cue after every punchline, making sure it registered with the hacks at their laptops. He’s got to learn this woman’s voice quick, and last night was a fantastic start.

It’s always good to see what works when you’re trying to figure out a new voice, one you haven’t studied before – and Palin is very new, and very unique, which makes her input on these speeches all the more significant. Anyone could write a Joe Biden speech at this point – just take a few slugs of whiskey, and stream of consciousness for about 4 hours. Don’t edit anything. Palin’s probably tougher to write for in this moment, but it’s clear she’s a natural – and if you give her something above average, her own ability will make it shine.

Let’s give Dean Barnett the last word – he hits directly on why this attack on Scully’s existence is so ludicrous. Read it here:

2) Interesting that the Obama campaign has decided that it has a winner in pointing out that Palin “cheated” by having a speechwriter. Of course, a pliant media did its job last night in spreading this supremely lame talking point. The funhouse at MSNBC was all over it, and even half the panel at Fox saw it as a nugget of information requiring dissemination. One can only wonder why media analysts didn’t feel it necessary to point out that Joe Biden’s oratory also received the ministrations of speechwriting pros (all appearances to the contrary). Could it be that Biden’s speech was so dreadful, no one felt the provenance of the speech required clarification?

Of course, this weak return of serve is unlikely to have its desired effect of dismissing Palin’s performance. Once again, Palin spoke directly to the American people last night – they’ll make up their own minds about her. It must really concern the Democrats that Palin will have many similar opportunities in the future.

A couple of final points on this matter – if giving a great speech is so darn easy, how come Joe Biden, John Kerry and Chris Dodd with a combined 340 years in politics have never been able to pull it off? And if it’s such an irrelevant skill, why again exactly is Barack Obama the Democrats’ nominee?

—

The Nielsen numbers are out, and wow, they are good. Sarah Palin’s speech, despite being carried on only six channels compared to Obama’s ten, despite the lack of a huge venue or months of hype, was viewed by only a million fewer people than Barack Obama’s Speech o’ the Century.

Via Clayton, a few notable facts: Palin beat Obama in Persons 55+ (reliable voters!) and multi person white households; in the 18-34 demo (Obamas home base) Palin drew 81% of his audience; In the 18-49 demo she drew 88% of his audience; Palin trounced Biden in all categories except multi-person black households. And here’s more from Nielsen itself:

• The Sara Palin speech generated 37.2 million viewers, just a 1.1 million viewers short of Barack Obama’s record-breaking speech on Day 4 of the Democratic Convention. The Palin speech was carried on only six networks while the Obama speech was carried on ten (including BET, TV One, Univision and Telemundo).
• Palin attracted a large female audience (19.5 million women, or 4.9 million more than Day 3 of the Democratic Convention).
• Ratings for viewers 55+ (25.2) continue to be about ten times higher than for teens (2.2)
• Day 3 for the GOP attracted more Hispanic viewers (1.4 million) than Day 3 of the Democratic Convention (1.2 million), even though Univision and Telemundo did not carry the speech.

That last point is astounding. Even though it’s not a huge number, the fact is that Barack Obama had a ton of built in advantages for his speech – whereas the only one for Sarah Palin is that the media had placed expectations in such a negative way that everyone wanted to tune in (perhaps in hopes of a trainwreck?). And an excellent sign for the level of interest in Palin, and the number of people outside of the Twin Cities who viewed the speech as a defining event for this election.

originally posted at redstate, second part here

As most of you know, I worked in the White House Speechwriting Office during the summer of 2002 as an intern – doing research, acting as support staff for the lead speechwriters, and contributing here and there – prior to joining the Administration as a speechwriter for Tommy Thompson in the fall. So at first, I foolishly thought Matt Scully’s article in The Atlantic about the inner workings of the office under Mike Gerson was a bit too insider-focused to get a lot of attention – who wants to read that kind of office gossip, after all? Just a bit of bad blood between coworkers, nothing particularly glamorous or tawdry about it.

Peter Baker’s A1 followup story in The Washington Post over the weekend shows how wrong I was. Apparently the squabble over Matt’s depiction of the oft-profiled Mike as a attention-loving scribe has just enough rancorous appeal in it to satisfy readers during the long hot gossip-starved DC summer. Vitter’s old news, so a sniping match between wonks will have to suffice.

Good speechwriting breeds a particular kind of personality. Few successful speechwriters are particularly egotistical. You have to lack the desire for ownership of your best writing, yet be a skilled enough writer to quiet your own voice, and instead adopt the vocabulary and tone of a political leader with whom you may have nothing in common, not even policy views.

Yet there’s another facet of personality there, as well – one that Henry Kissinger described eloquently in a brief paragraph in his memoirs which speaks of a long history of internal strife over remarks:

The choice of speechwriters always determined the tone and not infrequently the substance of a Presidential speech. The common conception is that speechwriters are passive instruments who docilely craft into elegant prose the policy thought of their principals. On the contrary, the vast majority of them are frustrated principals themselves who seek to use their privileged position to put over their own ideas.

There’s a lot of truth in that. And it’s one of the reasons that, for years, it was part of the unwritten speechwriter code that you 1) never publicly take credit for a line someone else delivered, 2) never let yourself become a story, and 3) you all rise and sink together as a team. That’s just part of what it means to be one of the people sitting behind the decisionmakers, the men and women who actually sit at the table.

The speechwriting process just helps bolster those rules. The speeches I contributed to in 2002 were really just anecdotes or lines here and there in relatively unimportant addresses – and on the rare occasion where a significant amount of material that I gave to the writers to put in a first draft actually made it through, I was just happy to have contributed. I’d occasionally tell friends to turn on C-SPAN or read a transcript where I’d contributed a key anecdote or thought there were some particularly excellent lines – the lovely Kristen Mugford (now the lovely Kristen Hayner ) and I spent many hours putting together some great stuff for the Ohio State Commencement address – but that was all.

There wasn’t a single speech that went through that wasn’t a group effort, and we understood that we were just a small part of a hard working team. That was the same rationale that informed my later speechwriting work. My attitude was always that if a line went over well, it was just inspired by the boss. If it didn’t, or if it got flack or became controversial, then hey, that was from me. That, I think, is the proper attitude of any staffer.

Personally, were I in Matt’s position, I’d probably have let Gerson keep going with his profiles and basking in praise without offering a public response (the same choice John McConnell has apparently made). It just seems petty to get into squabbles about such things after the fact. But then, I’ve never had Gerson do the kind of petty things he evidently did…according to that article, the credit-claiming internally was far worse than I ever thought or witnessed. From Matt’s perspective, it seems that Mike had a tendency to confuse himself with the man at the table. Everyone’s heard the “fine China” line already, but this is the one portion that seemed particularly bad to me:

I happened to be sitting at Mike’s laptop when it came time for us to send the very last draft to senior staff, and Mike, noticing that I had cc’d John and myself, stopped me: “Don’t do that! You can print copies from here!” I said, “Michael, why can’t I copy John and me?” This brought a frantic admission: “Because they don’t know you’re involved!” “And why is it a secret that we’re doing this together?” Because it was all very confidential, Mike explained as he rushed off—senior staff didn’t want anything leaking out. This performance was repeated at the White House, when Mike insisted that the usual author identifications not appear on drafts going to the president, or pouted when our department secretary put all three names there anyway. He seemed to think this was standard practice—just “the way it’s done” in Washington.

Matt was, and is, a brilliant and quirky man, and a very personable guy. He liked to sit in his office and eat his odd-smelling vegan food, but other than that, he was always circulating in the offices, joking, charming, laughing. He was an odd cat, but he was very fun to be around, and he kept people from stressing out too much in a very stressful time. He was fit and happy. He and John – two people who couldn’t be more unalike in lifestyle – would shoot the breeze for hours, having epic, hilarious conversations around speechmaking. Being in the room with them for just a few minutes could teach you more about speechwriting than years of classes. The most enjoyable part of my job was bringing them research for a minor speech, or an anecdote for a bigger one, and start them riffing on some historical figure or a ridiculous story from their long history of speechwriting.

[A side note: in my opinion, John was the most talented of the bunch, and the writer who got the President's voice the best. I didn't know it at the time, but the article seems to indicate that Matt agrees. In response to Ramesh's point, let me just say that JPod is absolutely correct. You could go through your entire life as a political insider without hearing about John McConnell, but if you saw his work laid out end to end on a page, you'd be shocked at how much exceptional material he's created, and how much you recognize. But John being John, you never will.]

The office was really quite enjoyable when I was there. Junior writer Ed Walsh was hilarious. The quiet, retiring Joe Shattan was a pleasure to work with, neurotic, shy, yet very endearing. Pete Wehner is a policy nerd’s nerd, but he embraces it – steady and responsible, he was like the MiniMe version of Bill Bennett in many ways (he’d written for Bennett for years prior). Working with Pete for several months illustrated that he was (and is) truly unique in Washington circles: he had no apparent vices, at all. And loyal to a fault, constant as the northern star. I am not at all surprised that Pete is siding with Mike in this.

Gerson, on the other hand, came across as a bit of a loner, the least interested in others. He never seemed to want to be in the office, and wasn’t the kind of person to say hello to you in the halls of the EEOB. He didn’t bother to learn people’s names if you weren’t important to him. I was lucky enough to have lunch with him in the White House Mess one day, and it was ridiculously, disappointingly dull. He’s clearly a genius for words, and a very good speechwriter, but he gave the impression of not having time for anything except sharing his brilliance. Privately, my friends and I compared him to Woody Allen’s character in Manhattan – the kind of fellow who thought of himself as a normal all-American guy, but if you pushed him to talk about what he really valued, he’d start with Willie Mays and quickly end up at “Sentimental Education by Flaubert.”

The only time I saw Mike brighten up to a significant degree was when a group of Wheaton kids came in at one point, and he shared stories about his experiences working for the President over the past several years. His respect for POTUS was demonstrable and real, and he was emphatically supportive of the mission of the White House. He liked being in that role, and it seemed to bring out the best in him. Thinking back, it makes me wonder if the bulk of the praising profiles of Mike that so irked Matt weren’t motivated by a similar rationale; not so much that Mike wanted to shine, but that he thought being more public about the reasoning behind remarks would illustrate how seriously the White House took the issues they were addressing.

Or perhaps this is just Kissinger’s line coming true once again. We can’t know motivations, after all. I prefer to assume the best in this circumstance.

Mike, Matt and John were given more access to the President than any previous Republican speechwriting team (infamously, Noonan had never met Reagan when she became a speechwriter for him, and didn’t meet with him frequently even after coming on staff). They did exceptional work for him as a team. I was proud, for a short time and in very small ways, to contribute to that team effort. And it will be very sad if, years from now, people remember this speechwriters’ spat instead of the eloquent, inspiring, and meaningful work that the whole of the team did, when the country needed it so.

(Originally posted by Ben on August 13, 2007)

Could Trent Lott have saved himself? We probably won’t ever be able to know the answer. I think it was within his ability to save himself, to give the equivalent of Nixon’s Checkers speech — which was a great one, and one few people actually remember accurately — and wrest control of this controversy away from the Democrats and the press.Lott just can’t handle this kind of pressure. Never a very philosophical man, he’s more of a vote counter than a bomb thrower, more deal maker than ideologue — and that means, in the face of angry questions and hostile interviews, he’s wilted like so much winter kudzu. He’s gone all over the map on his vote against the MLK holiday (Lott, like many others, has always said he opposes all government holidays because of their massive cost — around $300 million). He’s become Mr. Affirmative Action. And he’s talking about the South as if it’s some retromingent backlog of Third World economics and antebellum hostility. He just keeps digging a bigger hole.

Here’s a speech that Lott didn’t give. I don’t know if it would’ve saved him. He’s not a naturally eloquent man, so it’s hard to recover from mistakes like this. But I think if he had delivered a speech like this — solemnly, carefully, without any degree of lightheartedness — I think his cause might be a little better right now. He should’ve spoken on the front porch of his house. He should’ve taken no questions. He should not have smiled. He should just have been himself.

The Pascagoula Speech

Hello everyone. My name is Trent Lott, and I’m from Pascagoula, Mississippi.

I come before you tonight as a Senator, and as a man whose honesty and integrity has been questioned.

There’s a usual political thing to do when charges are made against you. You either ignore them, and pretend they didn’t happen. Or you deny them, and say that you’re blameless and innocent. There’s too much of that in politics already without me getting involved, so I’m not going to do either of those things tonight.

To me the office of United States Senator is a great office, and I feel that the people have got to have confidence in the integrity and honor of anyone they elect to hold that office. I’ve always believed that the best way to answer a charge, whether it’s a smear campaign or just an honest misunderstanding, is with the truth. And that is why I am here tonight.

I grew up here in Pascagoula. My father was a shipyard worker here, and my mother was a teacher. I went to the University of Mississippi, and my family and I worked hard so I could afford to go to law school there. I went to work for William Colmer, the Democrat Congressman from these parts, back in the late 60s — and when I first ran for office in 1972, I was glad to count William as my first supporter from the other side of the aisle.

The people of Mississippi have been good to me. It’s been an honor for me to serve them in the House and the Senate. And while I’ve been in Washington, I’ve tried to quit myself well. I’ve done my best to fight for the needs of Mississippi and of all Americans, and I’ve served the nation I love as hard as I can.

My party has seen fit to elect me as their leader in the Senate. It’s a position of great importance and history. Some of the great Americans who’ve held this position include Everett Dirksen, Henry Cabot Lodge, Charles McNary, Robert Taft, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole. And I consider it an honor to be counted among the ranks of men who have given so much in the service of their country.

I’m not an eloquent man. I haven’t succeeded in politics because I’m a skilful speaker, who can move people’s hearts with a few words. I’m a simple man, from a small town. So I’ve tried to compensate for that by working harder, putting in longer hours, and doing my best to meet the people of Mississippi where they live, as neighbors and friends, not just as another voter.

We all make mistakes sometimes when we talk. We say things that are rude or insensitive or just plain wrong. I don’t know a single person who hasn’t ever insulted or offended someone with their speech, unintentionally — either by telling an off-color joke, gossiping about others behind their backs, or making an inappropriate comment.

I’m no different as a person. The difference is, because of the position of prominence I have, when I make a mistake or speak without thinking that mistake gets carried on national TV and broadcast around the country. Instead of an apology on a personal level to the folks I offended, I must try to offer what impersonal apology I can through the lens of a TV camera.

My comment at Senator Thurmond’s birthday party was not in any way intended as an endorsement of the views Senator Thurmond espoused back in 1948. I did not misspeak; I simply did not consider the message my remarks would convey. It was a foolish statement, made in praise of an old, dying man. But that is no excuse for the offense.

When Senator Thurmond ran for President, I was all of seven years old. I would’ve had a hard time telling you what segregation meant then, or explaining why my black friends and white friends were “different.” But as I grew up and saw what turmoil the South was going through in the 50s and 60s, I saw a very clear battle going on — one that was more about the root belief in the equality and freedom than anything else.

I am a federalist, and a conservative. That means I believe in small government, in low taxes, in the rights of states and of individuals. People may disagree with my voting record — but I stand by it. I have fought hard to pursue the interests of the state of Mississippi. And there is not one vote I have cast in the Senate or the Congress that I regret.

I have had a long career in politics, and I am honored of the position in which God has seen fit to place me. I also understand the political realities of this media age. I understand that a stupid and insensitive comment like the one I made is repeated a million times, compounding the offense.

Some folks call it “gotcha” politics. But you know what, people out there that hate me wouldn’t be able to play “gotcha” if I didn’t give them something in the first place. And I will not allow the Republican party, the South, or the people of Mississippi to suffer for an offense that is nothing but my own.

And so tonight, I have called a meeting of the Republican Conference of the United States Senate. I will ask the Conference to vote again on the position of Majority Leader.

If the party supports me, I will continue on. But I believe that my fellow Senators deserve the right to make a forthright decision about their leader, and vote for the best possible candidate. If they choose to replace me with someone else, there are many worthy individuals within the Senate who would be good leaders in my stead. And I will not oppose their efforts.

I believe in America. I believe that America is a blessed nation. I believe America has, through war and conflict, protest and politics, come a long way down the road to resolving the problems of race, towards fulfilling the true meaning of our creed: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…

Across this country, though, you and I know that there are still pockets of hate, groups that have not learned from the past, groups that would like to live in a world without any members of other races, with signs that say “colored don’t enter here,” where the white children don’t hold hands with the black ones.

That is racist. That is evil. That is unAmerican. Anyone who stands for that view must know that they have an enemy in Trent Lott.

I am a simple man. I have always tried, throughout my career, to do the right thing. And I have made mistakes, like any flawed person. I apologize to those I have offended, and hope you will forgive me. In the end, that’s all I can hope for.

My name is Trent Lott, and I’m from Pascagoula, Mississippi.

May God bless you all, and may God bless America. Thank you, and goodnight.

(Originally posted by Ben at December 16, 2002 08:25 AM)