RSS Feed MenuMy column for The Week offers the president three speechwriting DOS and one DON’T.
Do salute the American soldier. Do acknowledge his predecessors by name, including George W. Bush. Do defend the Afghanistan mission.
Don’t worry about sounding humble: It’s too late for that now!
BoolaBoola // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:41 am
Do’s and don’ts for speechwriters: Don’t let your wife brag about your work!
BoolaBoola // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:42 am
Sorry, tried to resist, failed.
BoolaBoola // Dec 10, 2009 at 2:51 am
Seriously, my advice to the Prez would be, talk in considerable detail about de-commissioning nuclear weapons. I disagree with his dream of a totally nuclear-rein world, but cutting them all by say ninety-percent is a realistic, laudable idea. And, reducing nuclear weapons is directly in line with Nobel’s will, which calls for reducing standing armies (nukes are automated standing armies). Unlike, say, Borlaug’s prize and Al Gore’s. Tie the goal of reducing nuclear weapons with the problem of loose nukes.
franco 2 // Dec 10, 2009 at 6:12 am
And he shouldn’t say that he is proud to have received the same award as Yasser Arafat. That would be bad.
franco 2 // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:41 am
From the reporting of Jake Tapper ABC news:
Standing there watching Michelle Obama sign the book, the president said with a bemused look on his face, “She will resist writing something sarcastic, since this will be recorded for the future.”
Those assembled laughed.
_____________________________________
That was another thing he shouldn’t have said. Why would Michelle be tempted so say something sarcastic?
Laughter is often a nervous reaction when someone is strangely inappropriate, which this was.
franco 2 // Dec 10, 2009 at 8:36 am
Ironic that it took the awarding of a “Peace Prize” to elicit this statement from Obama:
“I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.
Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions – not just treaties and declarations – that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: the United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. ”
Give him another one, he finally makes sense! Paul Wolfowitz could have written that passage. What say you Democrat trolls?
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:09 am
When BoolaBoola begins anything with the qualifier of “seriously”, you know it’s going to be a belly laugher. What A TrollTribe StandUp that comedic boi has become!
Obama should keep his comments short and acknowledge what most Americans already know and the Prize Committee doesn’t: “I don’t deserve this; I didn’t earn it. But thank you.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1210/p06s01-woeu.html Money quote:
“According to a Quinnipiac University poll published yesterday, 2 out of 3 Americans do not think he deserves the prize. Even among Democrats, only 49 percent believe he does.”
But then, Obama could probably say the same thing about his presidency. Americans are steadily growing to believe the same.
cpanza // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:36 am
Franco,
I guess by “troll” you mean something incredibly broad like “anyone who doesn’t toe the right wing line”, so I suppose that includes me. I had no problem with his speech. I liked it. I have no problem with wars, when they are fought for just causes, and when the objectives are clear, obtainable, and realistic. Being on the left doesn’t mean a coma-like pacifism. In particular, I’m willing to give Afghanistan more time, but I’m simply not willing to write a open-ended blank check, as it seems most neocons are. Karzai himself say it would 15 years — that’s 2024 — until the Afghan army could “stand up” and defend itself against its foes. So are we now committed until 2024? I should hope not. There must be a sensible approach here, one that is open _to_ war, but at the same time realistic about how they are conducted, what the objectives are, what they cost, etc.
As well, I believe that since it is impossible to rid the world of terrorists who dislike you, claiming that we are “at war” due to terrorism will mean that America will be at war for the rest of eternity, a tactic I remember clearly from Orwell — “We have always been at war with Eastasia”.
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 9:44 am
C-pansie… by Troll we generally mean guys like you and your manufactured pals who come on a site dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to its majority status and inflame, incite, irritate, annoy, distract and disrupt the conversation for a pure sport and spite.
I have yet to read a single posting of yours or some of the other Trolls that advance the debate even an inch of progress. For a guy who was rabidly anti-war when it suited the political interests of the democrats to damage Bush, you seem incredibly (meaning beyond belief) willing to now support our Warrior in Chief and help label anyone who takes issue with his faked conversion as ‘un’patriotic.
It reminds me of the hollow anti-war, far Left democrat activists of 2004-2008 who rode around in their Volvos with bumper stickers asking Bush to “End this endless war”. And with BarryObama’s election, poof… the stickers disappeared faster than LyinJoeBiden’s hairplugs… or Robert Gibbs’ honor.
Troll, c-pansie. You got it nailed.
cpanza // Dec 10, 2009 at 10:13 am
MI:
I’ll make this one reply to you, and that’s it, because I find your posts empty and unproductive to say the least, and because you have a childish desire to insult people and call them names. In some cases, truthfully, those posts are at least in reply to some here who insult you. However, in most cases, the object of your ire has done no such thing other than merely disagree with you. This does not reflect well on your character.
Over the years, I have surely been on the left, no secret there. However, I have come to embrace some conservative ideas and principles as time has gone on. Given the fact that I have become more moderate and open to a broader discussion, I have found people like Frum, Bartlett, Sullivan, etc., to be worth the read, because I want to hear what people on the right, but who find far-rightism unproductive, have to say. This is a genuine interest of mine, and given that I have never given you or anyone else here any reason to think that I am a liar, there is no reason for you to suspect that I am not telling the truth. Of course, I suspect that you will think this is a “cover” for “trolling”. That’s too bad, and unfortunate, but honestly it is not my concern (nor do I care).
Also, I should note that I never once said I was “rabidly anti-war” when Bush was president. If you actually read what I say in my posts, I have _frequently_ said here at FF that I was _pro_ the war in Afghanistan up until quite recently. So actually, by your logic, my shifting positions would chronologically make me pro-Bush and anti-Obama. Unfortunately, I suppose that won’t fit well into the rigid conceptual scheme you seem to want to view me and others who diverge from you through. I also don’t drive a Volvo, or a Prius, and I don’t like lattes. I don’t read HuffPo or Kos, as I find them boring. Of course, I assume that you will insist that I am lying about all of this, right?
So go ahead — start composing your insulting silly reply. Doesn’t matter — until you actually seem marginally willing to engage with those with differing views in a way that has some modicum of intellectual integrity, you won’t hear a peep from me.
CentristNYer // Dec 10, 2009 at 10:16 am
Cpanza: Agree that the speech was up to Obama’s usual standard. Balanced, nuanced, spoke to both the domestic and the international audiences effectively, set out our nation’s goals and responsibilities, and established what kinds of wars are worth fighting and which are not. Even the FauxNews morning zoo crew had a hard time finding fault with it. And Michael Gerson — one of Bush’s former speechwriters — mostly praised it.
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:01 am
Obama should keep his comments short and acknowledge what most Americans already know and the Prize Committee doesn’t: “I don’t deserve this; I didn’t earn it. But thank you.”
Of course, it’s perfect troll conduct to avoid the truth and spin away, c-pansie. Just like with your rabid anti-war commentary when it helped democrat partisan advantage against Bush from 2004-2008 and, now that it’s your man in the hot seat, time to drop that tactic, eh?
C-pansie, for a guy who does little here but make endlessly empty, useless comments, you are an expert on that score. And remind us all… as a far Left, democrat activist, why are you on a blog dedicated to the rebuilding of the conservative movement and return of the GOP to its majority status? Intellectual curiousity? Oh yeah, you are the poster child for that gig. N-o-t.
I think you gain as much reassurance from the soothing, endless reverberations of the TrollTribe’s echo chamber as does AnnieM and PracticalGrrrrl. For you, you’ve proven it’s all about the snide sport of disrupting sincere discussion on a blog that has nothing to do with you.
franco 2 // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:01 am
A troll by my definition is someone who pretends to be part of a faction in an intramural debate when they really oppose BOTH factions. They are inherently disingenuous.
There are countless posters here who wish the Republican Party ill whether the party is moderate or farther to the right who couch their comments in empty definitions of “conservatism”.
They are easily outed by anyone who understands basic conservative ideology.
Frum is under the mistaken notion that the Republican party needs to moderate to attract independents. The fact that he uses the word “conservative” is fairly despicable since he is trying to bend the meaning of the word, crudely trying to co-opt and undermine conservatism in general.
There certainly exists a subset of voters who would vote for a Republican if they perceived the entire party to be more moderate than it is but not enough to account for lost conservative votes in some of our opinions. But most of the posters here do not fall into that category. They are people who enjoy watching the battle but would NEVER themselves vote for a Republican of any stripe under any circumstances.
Some of them would rather debate Republicans who agree with their assumptions and Frum and Sullivan and others all accept their assumptions and therefore they feel empowered to debate them and their notions. But these people can’t abide a debate where their assumptions are questioned.
“But what a lot of people do is try to escape their sense of shame dishonestly by constructing elaborate moral frameworks that allow them to parade their virtue and their lavish repentance without any real inconvenience to themselves while simultaneously indulging in self-righteousness by condemning others for their impenitent evil. That’s the bad version of religion – the sort of religion Jesus came to dismantle. And that’s exactly the sort of religion leftism is: an elaborate system for hiding shame behind a cheap mask of virtue. That’s why they demonize any opposition. To them, we’re not just disagreeing with them, we’re threatening to tear off the mask of their virtue and reveal them to themselves.” – Andrew Klavan
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:07 am
CentristNYer ramps up the volume inside the TrollTribe echo chamber: “Cpanza: Agree that the speech…”
Quick, all Trolls. Code 5 Alert… the truth is seeping out and we can’t have that! Defend the indefensible with some indefatigable offense… yeah, that’s the ticket that will turn around Obama’s downward slide in the polls.
Trolls, if you would just turn off the echo chamber and honestly discuss the issue raised in the articles instead of tirelessly spinning things toward the Obama Messiah talking points of the day, it would be more fruitful for you. Why do you guys avoid the truth so wickedly?
cpanza // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:14 am
Franco:
I don’t doubt that some people wish the GOP ill regardless of whether it is moderate or not. There also seem to me to be many here who do not fall into that category, but yet who take issue with some of what is said or commented on here. It would be wise to draw a distinction.
If part of your beef is with Frum, as you suspect that he is under a mistaken notion about the need to attract moderates, then direct it at him. If moderates post here with the desire to engage with others in discussion, that doesn’t make them trolls if attracting moderates in discussion is part of Frum’s aim.
By the way, taken strictly as a statement of moral philosophy, Klavan’s quote comes up rather short. But taken more broadly as a characterization of human psychology, if you don’t think Klavan’s quote is a glove that fits the hands of many on the left _and_ the right, then I humbly submit that you are the one being disingenuous.
CentristNYer // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:39 am
franco 2 // Dec 10, 2009 at 11:01 am
“The fact that he uses the word “conservative” is fairly despicable since he is trying to bend the meaning of the word, crudely trying to co-opt and undermine conservatism in general.”
To the contrary, he’s trying to return it to its earlier roots. There’s a lot of bad policy and thinking that’s been masquerading as “conservative” over the last 20 years — not coincidentally since the rise of the religious right within the party. What would have once been considered core conservative conviction (for instance, supporting same sex marriage because it encourages individual rights and responsibilities) has now morphed into odious, moralizing legislation (like DOMA). That’s what truly despicable — the corruption of conservatism by “the base.”
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Obama should keep his comments short and acknowledge what 68% Americans already know and the Prize Committee doesn’t: “I don’t deserve this; I didn’t earn it. But thank you.”
cpanza // Dec 10, 2009 at 12:59 pm
MI:
I appreciate the straightforward comment without the insults/outrage tinged BS. I actually agree with you: he neither earned nor deserved the reward. Maybe he might someday, but that day is not today. Moreover, I think he knows that too (I appreciated his remark about his slight accomplishments in comparison with former winners). I also think most people on this site believe it.
I think he did the right thing. He was humble about the award, acknowledged that he hasn’t done much to deserve it, said thank you – and then used the opportunity of a world-stage to make a speech about the state of the world, and America’s position in it. In fact, I’m sure if he had not made that speech, he would have been criticized roundly by those who would have said he blew an opportunity to advance the country’s interests. He would have been called egotistical to have kept the comments short, as if being on the stage was just “about him”. It would have led to some — perhaps even our benefactor Frum — to comment on the number of times he said “I” in his short comments.
No, I think he did the right thing, and I have no doubt that this speech angered the Nobel committee.
MI-GOPer // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:15 pm
You “think he did the right thing”? c-pansie?
Gee, c-pansie, I would have never, ever, ever guessed you’d come to that conclusion! Wow, that’s stepping outside your comfort zone as a democrat activist takes a lot of guts. Do all your students show such moxy? Wow.
Obama didn’t anger the Nobel Committee with his speech; he couldn’t no matter how badly he botched the evening. They were happy as larks to have gotten the hottest celebrity ticket to come to their gig and raise their standing. Besides, as we all know, the Left helps defend & encourage those it views as iconic Left legends… and Obama is the Left’s #1 icon. Gore is a distant #2 –all those nasty email lies coming to light doesn’t help insure the public remains wedded to the proposition that global warming is all about science. Why, if we allow people to question science, Nobel Committee thinks it might lead to an uptick in religionists getting their evil way again.
Besides, if it hadn’t been Obama this year, I hear alQaeda was up for the Nobel. They earned it! They helped the Taliban have one of the best year’s ever in Afghanistan –303 US soldiers killed while Obama slept through his dithering 1st yr. Multiple forward bases over-run using old Enfields and swords… it was the best year for the Taliban and that helps alQaeda recruit like a hair plug salesman at a Biden family reunion.
Obama didn’t deserve it, he didn’t earn it, he should have followed the advice of a notable leader who has a higher approval rating (Mrs Palin) and boycotted the event.
Dr Sima Samar deserved the prize and she earned it by outlasting the evil Taliban… you know, the group that Obama now seems intent on turning Afghanistan over to?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/tag/nobel+prize+finalists/
cpanza // Dec 10, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Ah well, it didn’t last long. Back to ignore.
BoolaBoola // Dec 11, 2009 at 1:43 am
Hey, I resent being called a troll! I’m AT LEAST an orc or an ogre. I hope in a few years to be promoted to Balrog!
MI-GOPer // Dec 11, 2009 at 1:33 pm
c-pansie, you gotta get a new act… the whole “ignore” thing has been tried by so many democrat activists as a mechanism to stand above their more worhty opponents that Saul Alinsky has an entire chapter on it in his “Community Activism for Idiots” coloring book.
$14.99 on Amazon.com
cpanza // Dec 11, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Yours is the act that is tiresome. Still, everyone’s got to have something to get them up in the morning, so emote on, my angry righteous brother!