|
 |
January 20, 2004 SOME ADVICE FOR THE DEMOCRATS....24 is a repeat this week, undoubtedly due to State of the Union counter-programming strategery by Fox, so that gives me time for one more post tonight. And what I feel like posting about is the crappy Democratic response to the SOTU. Why was it so crappy? To be sure, part of it was the speakers themselves. And the speech itself wasn't so hot either. Plus the decision to have both Pelosi and Daschle speak probably wasn't very smart. But I think there's an even bigger problem. When the president speaks, he does it in a big room full of people. He's addressing those people, they clap and cheer, and there's a lot of natural energy surrounding the whole thing. This is what the response needs. Now, back in my marketing days I used to enjoy talking to groups. I don't know why, I just did. But practicing speeches was entirely different. I almost never did it, and when I did I was horrible: wooden, stuttery, and joyless. Much like tonight's performance. But put me up on a stage with real people in front of me and I was fine. I think that's what the response needs. The Democrats should have rented a ballroom or something, invited a few hundred party stalwarts (at 500 bucks a pop!), and delivered a real speech to a real audience. Instead of a deathly quite soundstage and an unblinking camera, they could have used the energy of the room the way any good speaker does. So that's my advice: pick a good speaker, write him/her a good speech, and then deliver the speech to a real audience. I personally guarantee results. Posted by Kevin Drum at January 20, 2004 09:43 PM | TrackBackComments
One of the things that weakens our party is that Democrats refuse to use simple sales and marketing techniques - as if it's somehow "beneath" them or cheapens the message. Democrats would so often rather be right than effective. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Posted by: Susan at January 20, 2004 09:46 PM | PERMALINKYou know, for all the gnashing of teeth about our presidential candidates I think most of us agree that at least one is impressive, and they almost all have their good points. It's our Congressional leadership that's been terrible. But I cannot for the life of me figure out what's to be done about it. There's no primary for House Speaker or Senate Minority leader. Posted by: Katherine at January 20, 2004 09:53 PM | PERMALINKOpps, I meant, "Very good point, Kevin. You have a good point to, Susan. Posted by: Rook at January 20, 2004 09:54 PM | PERMALINKKatherine, I don't much like the Congressional Leadership either, but at least in terms of doing her Job, Pelosi has started to impress me. The fact that the Dems held together in the House on the Medicare debacle multiplied my respect for her by a factor of 10. Compare that to the skill of Daschle in organizing the Senate for the same fight...etc. Another on Daschle: Sure, I support country of origin labeling on foodstuffs, but is that really such a big issue that it fits into the State of the Union response? Why was that in there? Posted by: Balta at January 20, 2004 09:59 PM | PERMALINKHell yes. Go over to Georgetown and GWU and American and get the young Democrats to come in and listen to the response. Good idea, Kevin. Send it off to McAuliffe ASAP. Posted by: Linkmeister at January 20, 2004 10:00 PM | PERMALINKBalta: I think the country-of-origin stuff must have been a rebuttal to Bush's steroids proposal.... Posted by: Kevin Drum at January 20, 2004 10:02 PM | PERMALINKYou know, I was just thinking the same thought! Posted by: Blue at January 20, 2004 10:03 PM | PERMALINKAnd just one more comment on my original suggestion. It's not that it's impossible to give a decent speech in a quiet room, it's just that it's such a contrast to the SOTU. You go from clapping and cheering directly to deathly silence. It's the contrast that's the real killer. Posted by: Kevin Drum at January 20, 2004 10:04 PM | PERMALINKyou're totally right about the live audience. "I talk the camera" rarely works. And they're usually so tepid, there's no downside in trying it. Maybe we just need designated go-to speakers distinct from our legislators. Ford is great on TV, for example. Posted by: Katherine at January 20, 2004 10:10 PM | PERMALINKrebuttal speeches are victims are what most political actions are made of - selfish actions by egomaniacs. Daschle and Pelosi are in place now because of a thousand circumstances. Exactly like Bush, I'm sure they feel that they were "born on third and thought [they] hit a triple". Humbleness is not a character trait of powerful people. To cede some aspect of the rebuttal to others (whether in an audience or whatever) would be to divide the attention away from them. Until Democratic politicians remember that it's more important to make the entire party successful than get a few seconds of personal airtime they will be snacking on Republican crumbs. For the sake of Democracy, I hope a few get it - sooner rather than later. Posted by: Joey Jojo at January 20, 2004 10:10 PM | PERMALINKIt's actually pretty stunning that neither party's done something like that yet. I suspect that the difficulty would be ensuring that the crowd walked the line between enthusiasm and a lack of decorum. Something that looked -- or sounded -- like a pep rally would risk turning off anyone that wasn't already on board. Plus, of course, if it smacks of politickin', the networks might pull off of it. Posted by: Balisardo at January 20, 2004 10:14 PM | PERMALINKI always talk to my Mom after a SOTU; she's my seniors sounding board. She really didn't hear anything that stood out in GWB's speech and didn't bother listening to the response. Most primary decisions are made in the last 3 weeks before a primary, and in the general election campaign, it's the last three months. The SOTU is meaningless. Posted by: Kevin Hayden at January 20, 2004 10:14 PM | PERMALINKThere's a Dem debate this in NH. Maybe the candidates could all issue a JOINT Fisking of SOTU? Posted by: Andrew Lazarus at January 20, 2004 10:17 PM | PERMALINKI just saw Hugh Hewitt's blog over at HughHewitt.com. He thought Pelosi and Daschle were terrible. He plans on replaying their speech on his radio show Wednesday. Posted by: Kevin Gregory at January 20, 2004 10:27 PM | PERMALINKI think timing is the big issue. The Dems would have to get a room in the capitol. Considering the security issues of the SOTU, that might make it difficult to bring a bunch of people in to be the audience for the response. Even if these can be addressed, it's possible that the networks won't want to bother making the extra effort to get cameras over to the other room. But, god willing, we won't have to worry about making another SOTU rebuttal for eight years or so. Plenty of time to work it out. Posted by: Jon H at January 20, 2004 10:28 PM | PERMALINKWhat the Democrats in Washington (and those on the Presidential Campaign trail) is A CLUE. I mean, these people need to GET WITH THE FUCKIN' PROGRAM OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY so we can elect someone who isn't afraid to take on the Republicans and take them to task when needed. If we are this disorganized and left out of the political loop come November, I may not even vote cast a vote for President (I'd rather NOT vote for President at all than to cast a vote for Bush). I will show up at the polls though I may just vote on the other items on the November ballot. I hate to be this blunt (especially in the comment section of someone else's blog) BUT.... Cheers for now :) Pat Posted by: Pat Cook at January 20, 2004 10:34 PM | PERMALINKWhy not just get Democratic congressmen and senators to attend the speech (assuming it's in the Capitol)? Posted by: John at January 20, 2004 10:35 PM | PERMALINKNancy Pelosi is a smart woman, but she really needs to lay off the Botox. Her frozen smile is creepy. I felt like we should have been gving her the replicant quiz. Posted by: Charles at January 20, 2004 10:41 PM | PERMALINKNext time get better speakers. Get some real barn burners, or at least someone eloquent. (Robert Byrd comes to mind) That deer in the headlights on quaaludes thing just wasn't working for me. Plus, all the crap this admin has screwed up and Daschle is talking about labeling food's country of origin? Time and place... Posted by: four legs good at January 20, 2004 10:44 PM | PERMALINKTeddy was very good in his comments with Blitzer after the SOTU. I remember people were proposing the same speech-to-crowd idea after the Dem response last year (at least on blogs they were), it's too bad they didn't go for it. Posted by: Brendan at January 20, 2004 11:01 PM | PERMALINKWell...my wife says Nancy Pelosi is scary as Hell, that she looks like corpse when on television. Take that for what its worth. My wife also like Edwards all along as she thought he was by far the most attractive of the candidates...so go figure. Maybe she is onto something. Posted by: Steve at January 20, 2004 11:08 PM | PERMALINKHow about on the steps of Walter Reed hospital. GWB=Murdering bastard. Posted by: BOHICA at January 20, 2004 11:10 PM | PERMALINKI'm curious about something that came up in a conversation with a
friend a few days ago: are there constraints on who delivers the
traditional opposition party rebuttal to the State of the Union address?
Must he or she be in public office? I was thinking the exact same thing Kevin. Why not get a ballroom, make it a good political event, and get a response from the speech, instead of what we saw tonight. The dems need to make some changes, and take some chances, and tonight we saw more of what they did in 2002, which in my opinion bodes very ill for our chances in 2004. Along the same lines, I wonder if any of the dems consider walking out during a SOTU; especially when Bush offers such a political speech, that was so deep in rhetoric, and chastizing that I think it was in bad taste. Posted by: Linkert at January 20, 2004 11:16 PM | PERMALINKAbout those speeches... "...Lakoff believes that the Republicans are experts at framing, while the Democrats hardly appear to understand how the technique works at all. Take almost any major political issue, and the Democrats react to how the Bush Cartel has "framed the issue," rather than forcing the GOP to respond to a Democratic "frame."..." here --> http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17574 and here --> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml "Against stupidity, the very gods themselves must contend in vain." - Friedrich von Shille Posted by: daCascadian at January 20, 2004 11:19 PM | PERMALINKI agree-- The "The Wheel of Fortune" studio audience thing might not work so well after the SOTU. They used Robert Byrd once, along with House Speaker Jim Wright. They were both awful! People who can give a speech before the Senate or who can perform well on TV interview shows look awful in this seldom-used medium. Something about As I said in the other thread, the best oppo response I've seen was Fred Thompson, who has also been a movie actor and trial lawyer. His speech was perfectly delivered, but just the same came across like a regular guy, not overly "slick." Posted by: rachelrachel at January 20, 2004 11:22 PM | PERMALINKAgree with most of the above, but my take (as someone with some
expertise in verbal branding) is that nobody is going to rally around a
"tag line" concept like "Opportunity Society". I'd be glad to count the
ways that this phrase both sucks on its own benefit concept AND is
illustrative of our party's complete inability to harness the power of
language to further its own righteous cause. why does it have to be given in washington? Because the SOTU is a speech given to Congress, and the response
should come from a member of Congress. Usually, they have used the
caucus leaders (and there might be some internal political reasons for
doing so) but why not pick somebody more comfortable in front of a
studio camera? Nancy Pelosi is a smart woman, but she really needs to lay off the Botox. Not Botox. Bad face-lift. A shame. Posted by: Molly, NYC at January 20, 2004 11:55 PM | PERMALINK
Can't kill what's already dead. There have been a number of brilliant political addresses delivered cold, without a live audience, which have also nevertheless been moving and efficacious. Those addresses were delivered by pols who were simply more skilled at the art than are Tom & Nancy. I thought that Dubya's speech was the same sort of unconsciously self-parodying material I've been laughing over from him for years. But the Democratic response was equally, and memorably, awful. Posted by: marquer at January 21, 2004 01:13 AM | PERMALINKLook, the Democrats' role in our one-party state is to play the role of Charlie Brown, always having Lucy pull the football away at the last minute. Expecting them to do anything but lose is like betting on the Washington Generals. We need to build a third party that is responsive to normal people's needs in this country. Posted by: Noam Chimpsky at January 21, 2004 01:25 AM | PERMALINKKevin makes a good point. One question regarding logistics, are the rebuttals prerecorded, or do the speakers run from the SOTU to where ever they do the rebuttal? Since decorum will require the opposition to attend the SOTU, the logistics of getting anywhere out of the Capital building may preclude Kevin's suggestion. The other possibility is to drop the rebuttals. I don't remember when they started, but it wasn't that long ago. And I have always found them inane, regardless of which party controls the White House. Posted by: Proper response at January 21, 2004 02:46 AM | PERMALINKWhat we fucking need is an actual live rebuttal, not two canned speeches. You know, like what any competent Debate Society 10th grader can do. Prime Minister's Question Time in Parliament . . . now that's a government. I remember being impressed with Bush Sr's dynamicism in his weekly press conferences, after 8 years of Slappy. Posted by: Troy at January 21, 2004 04:15 AM | PERMALINKPelosi has that "deer in the headlights" look with the big eyes that blink a lot. She looks like the last person you would want in charge our security. Two speakers was a bad idea too. Daschle should have made the speech alone. Hopefully, it will be long forgotten soon. Posted by: Tom at January 21, 2004 04:20 AM | PERMALINKI agree with Troy. Take it a step further - directly, in front of a live audience, on the spot rebut the SOTU. Get John Edwards to do it, if Daschle needs to have his speeches written. But I don't think Daschle needs help. We can all do it. Look at all the on-the-spot responses all over the web. If the Poor Man can totally eviscerate the speech within minutes, surely a professional politician can do the same. Posted by: Andrew Edwards at January 21, 2004 05:22 AM | PERMALINKKevin's suggestion has been tried. Some years back, when she was Governor of NJ, Christine Whitman gave the Republican response to a Clnton SOTU. She gave the speech before a live audience in a New Jersey state building -- either the assembly or the state senate. I do not recall whether the audience was the NJ legislators or some selected group. My vague memory is that her speech wasn't particularly memorable. Posted by: David at January 21, 2004 05:30 AM | PERMALINKOh, and don't do it from Washington. Do it from a ballroom in a swing state. Pennsylvania or Michigan. Posted by: Andrew Edwards at January 21, 2004 05:31 AM | PERMALINKChristie Todd Whitman did that a few years ago when she delivered the GOP response. I can't remember if it was to the entire state legislature, just the Republicans, or what. Frankly, we should just do away with the opposition response speech. It's a silly idea. The "out" party will get plenty of television time right after the speech anyway on all the talking head shows. Posted by: James Joyner at January 21, 2004 05:45 AM | PERMALINKSteve's wife thinks Edwards is handsome, so Edwards is the one we have to get behind. It's fan-mag America folks. Now that Jennifer Aniston is free from Friends, could someone give here a call and see if she'd like to do a run as president? No one looking like toothless old Washington, like Jefferson, Jackson or Lincoln could ever make it now. And TR with his pop-bottle glasses had a grim goofier than Dean's. We're lost. Totally fucking lost. If you have sons (or daughters) approaching draft age, kids you'd like to see live full lives with all their limbs, and maybe someday have more than minimum wages jobs with no health care but one-week vacations... Not to pick on you, Steve. You are bearer of the truth. Posted by: Karlsfini at January 21, 2004 05:51 AM | PERMALINKSo that's my advice: pick a good speaker, write him/her a good speech, and then deliver the speech to a real audience. I personally guarantee results. Of course, first the Dems have to -find- a good speaker. I'm sure they're out there, but I haven't heard one in several years... Posted by: Anarch at January 21, 2004 05:51 AM | PERMALINKIn the Dem response there was NO mention of the deficit (now standing
at $23,000 for every taxpayer in the country and NO mention of the
missing-in-action WMD. these were missed opportunities big time. It's the teleprompter; neither Daschle nor Pelosi are experienced at using it. They would be better off speaking from a podium with a typed speech in front of them, which is what they're used to. Either that, or start practicing using a teleprompter. An audience might be a good idea too, but the main problem to me was the glassy look and stuttering delivery they had while dealing with the teleprompter. Posted by: DanM at January 21, 2004 06:12 AM | PERMALINKIf we're going to be creative, why not get really creative? Have several great demo speakers teed up at several sites -- one at the site of the WTC, one in a town hall near where the major employer has shut down, one in a school assembly room, retirement center, or near a hospital. Give each speaker a live audience of screened citizens and talk about real issues. The talks could be 90% worked out in advance, since the SOTU content is so predictable. (Don't waste the time responding to silliness like the steroids point.) Link 'em the speakers by satellite and just hand the networks the feed. It would convey a party in touch with the country and it would blow away Mr. callow-son-of-privilege in Washington. Posted by: David - Disappointed Demo in San Francisco at January 21, 2004 06:20 AM | PERMALINKI think that undoubtedly, as Kevin so aptly points out, the biggest
problem with the Dems is their lack of marketing forethought and skills. Kevin, Why not a panel of left leaning TV commentators and a leading democratic pol doing a kind of "capitol gang" dissection of the speech from an opposition perspective? Don't worry. The rebuttal speeches reach history's trashbin rather rapidly. Anybody remember Gary Locke's rebuttal to the SoU? I certainly hope everyone has. Sooner or later the republicans will have to be giving these things. What goes around, comes around. Posted by: bobbyp at January 21, 2004 06:41 AM | PERMALINKUm, do Democrats have any good speakers? They all sucked -- as Will Saletan at Slate points out, both the official contingent of Daschle and Pelosi and the unofficial respondents Kerry and Clark all had amateur hour delivery and not that much to say. I'm a disheartened (former?) Deaniac, but this incompetence at the top is why we Deaniacs were so angry at the "Washington Democrats" and looking for someone who could shake things up. It's looking like Dean's not going to be the guy, but to whom do we look now? Posted by: Dan Perreten at January 21, 2004 06:45 AM | PERMALINKWhy not a panel of left leaning TV commentators and a leading democratic pol doing a kind of "capitol gang" dissection of the speech from an opposition perspective? That's what I was thinking. Or at least get someone to play straight man and ask questions along the lines of 'but surely the PATRIOT Act deserves to stay in effect?' Posted by: ahem at January 21, 2004 07:00 AM | PERMALINKSteve's wife thinks Edwards is handsome, so Edwards is the one we
have to get behind. It's fan-mag America folks. Now that Jennifer
Aniston is free from Friends, could someone give here a call and see if
she'd like to do a run as president? Karlsfini is fully correct. It has been a long time since I read Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, but wasn't the fake opposition character for the two party "state" a frumpy bald fella with bad teeth and a beard? I need a reread. Bradbury saw it ALL clearly over 50 years ago (from "ear buds" to "wall-screens" to reality tv to comic books for the population to children killing children). That book is postively prescient. Posted by: -pea- at January 21, 2004 07:00 AM | PERMALINKThe speeches that SHOULD have been given: the two SCORCHING editorials in today's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html William Safire on Underdawg Dean is (I'm actually saying this?!) really excellent, too. Link to it on the same page. Posted by: fast pete at January 21, 2004 07:05 AM | PERMALINKRe the Christie Whitman speech: IIRC, that was in Jan 1995, right after the Gingrich takeover, when the GOP was talking about devolution to the states (what ever happened to that?) and such. I think it wasn't much better than the typical SOTU response. My advice would be that, instead of just a speech right into the camera - with Nancy Pelosi's unblinking eyes and botox-ed forehead (Roger Simon's wife had that one right!) - completely distracting us, the response should be more of a presentation. Use Powerpoint or something. There is a disadvantage in not having a crowd, but there can also be an advantage - it is easier to set something like that up. When Giuliani and Bloomberg give their State of the City reports, they have these wonderful Powerpoint presentations; why can't the SOTU responders do something like that? Posted by: Al at January 21, 2004 07:21 AM | PERMALINKDon't worry. The rebuttal speeches reach history's trashbin rather rapidly. I completely agree. Yes, from what little I saw of then, Pelosi and Daschle sucked, and for them not to even mention the deficit is unforgivable. But does anybody ever remember anything that gets said in these SOTU responses? No way. For the people who only briefly pay attention to politics--like maybe the SOTU, plus other major presidential speeches, convention acceptance speeches, and the campaign debates--the oppo response to the SOTU is a particularly unmemorable irrelevancy come election time. Still, it would be nice if these responses didn't blow so much. Posted by: Haggai at January 21, 2004 07:30 AM | PERMALINKAnother idea: start the speech with some off the cuff remarks about the speech. I mean, if I were giving the speech, I would put off giving the prepared comments and say something about "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." I mean, how could anyone let that go without comment? Imagine if Al Franken got to give the rebuttal. Imagine what he would say off the top of his head. THAT'S what we need. Can we get Al Franken to give it? Posted by: David at January 21, 2004 07:33 AM | PERMALINKperhaps the democrats could have said that the winner of iowa caucus would give the speech.. it would have made the whole thing a bit like survivor and attracted some attention to it. Posted by: smartone at January 21, 2004 07:35 AM | PERMALINKThey could always do an MSt3k thing with Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo, and Jon Stewart "sitting down in front" Posted by: Jon H at January 21, 2004 07:35 AM | PERMALINKDon't worry. The rebuttal speeches reach history's trashbin rather rapidly. When I hear that, I hear an opportunity. Again, get someone who's funny and who can make some off the cuff remarks about the SOTU itself, before giving the prepared rebuttal. I mean, imagine the rebuttal starting off with: "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities? Can anyone tell me what that means? Because I havent' got the foggiest idea." Make it BRITISH... make it clever and funny and totally ruthless. Here's a good rebuttal from the Center for American Progress. One more comment: If we had really smart, creative people working on the Democratic rebuttal, they would make it MORE worth watching that the SOTU itself. They should aim for Al Franken and John Stewart, for at least part of it. The Dems could turn the time over to the presidential candidates. Some kind of carefully-produced, smack-talk-free mini-forum maybe. It's risky, but hail-mary passes are what we need, not Daschle and Pelosi running it up the middle. Posted by: son volt at January 21, 2004 07:43 AM | PERMALINKGoddammit, why do we need rebuttal speeches; WHY CAN'T the FRICKIN' MEDIA FACT-CHECK the president's speechwriters??? Posted by: Troy at January 21, 2004 07:43 AM | PERMALINKyou know, pickler-esque: while the president listed many countries that have signed on to the war on Iraq, he failed to mention that all but the UK and Spain did it on a quid-pro-quo basis. Posted by: Troy at January 21, 2004 07:44 AM | PERMALINKAmong the various reasons to despise Woodrow Wilson's Presidency was his beginning the tradition of the President delivering the State of the Union in person. If we could only get back to the days of the President sending a letter over to Capitol Hill, Kevin could have new episodes of "24" to watch. If this waste of time is to continue, however, the Democrats would be well-advised to get somebody who understands television. As mentioned above, Fred Thompson was about as good as it gets. Posted by: Will Allen at January 21, 2004 07:47 AM | PERMALINKAnother on Daschle: Sure, I support country of origin labeling on foodstuffs, but is that really such a big issue that it fits into the State of the Union response? Why was that in there? Turns out that is what is holding up the three month late, $300 billion, ommibus spending bill. Inside baseball, in other words. Posted by: Duncan Young at January 21, 2004 07:49 AM | PERMALINKExcellent suggestion about the rebuttal, Kevin, and if a governor does it, a venue with audience could be arranged ahead of time. And is there any reason the rebuttal has to be right after the speech, when anybody who has endured the SoU has probably turned off the TV or surfed to something else besides the rebuttal? Why not the day after, in prime time? Seems only fair. Oops, better not give the Republicans any ideas about how to stage
their rebuttals when President Clark or Kerry or Dean is in the White
House. My question to you is, why doesn't the DNC hire you? This is common sense stuff. Also, why on earth did we have Daschle give the response? Why not Durbin, or any other Democrat with a spine who has more moral authority to knock down Bush than Daschle? He may be the Senate minority leader, but he is hardly the best choice in this situation. The Democrats need their own version of that Republican bomb thrower, Newt Gingrich. I know everyone thought Howard Dean was over the top the other night, but the party needs that kind of passion right now. We can't continue to sleepwalk through this campaign! Posted by: Shelley of Westchester, IL at January 21, 2004 08:03 AM | PERMALINKI mean, imagine the rebuttal starting off with: "Weapons of mass destruction-related program activities? Can anyone tell me what that means? Because I havent' got the foggiest idea." Make it BRITISH... make it clever and funny and totally ruthless. Good idea, although the language they tend to use in Parliament just lends itself a lot better to that sort of sardonic thing. To mention a phrase I heard once on C-SPAN House of Commons coverage, it wouldn't really work if a Dem said, "Because of the absolute dog's breakfast that the president has made out of the pre-and post-war diplomacy, we have little help in Iraq from other countries..." Posted by: Haggai at January 21, 2004 08:05 AM | PERMALINKThat kind of illustrates the problem with Daschle as minority leader. His seat is not "safe," which means that he is constrained in what he can do, say, and vote on. The labeling of foodstuffs was almost certainly there because Daschle's constituents are concerned about it. It was wildly inappropriate in a SOTU response. Posted by: PaulB at January 21, 2004 08:07 AM | PERMALINKThat's a great point about Fahrenheit 451, Pea. Man, that really takes me back. I think Montag's wife disliked the bad candidate because he kept picking his nose during the debate. Wasn't there an internet rumor going around that Al Franken might get recruited to run for the Senate in Minnesota against Norm Coleman? That would be the most entertaining campaign ever. And then they really could get him to do the oppo, if we still have a Republican president in 2010. I'll bet Sen. Schumer could give a pretty good speech. What's more, I'll bet he'd really enjoy getting the chance to appear on national TV. Posted by: JP at January 21, 2004 08:12 AM | PERMALINKCongressional Leaders are seldom the kinds of personalities that play well on the national stage. Tip O'Neill was the rare exception. Those leaders that try to play the game out front usually come to grief, e.g. Gingrich, Lott. To lead your party in Congress takes a personality that "gets along". They shouldn't be put on television after the built-in "West Wing" drama of the SOTU. They'll always be boring in comparison. Posted by: Dan A at January 21, 2004 08:22 AM | PERMALINKTroy--WHY CAN'T the FRICKIN' MEDIA FACT-CHECK the president's speechwriters??? Facts are stupid things. Posted by: Ronny at January 21, 2004 08:26 AM | PERMALINKwe never used to have these democratic responces, remember. This is a recent thing. Perhaps one good reason for the venomous partisanship in politics today is on account of the media? Conflict sells after all.. and things that the media stages these days seem to be in terms of conflict Posted by: Gimli at January 21, 2004 08:32 AM | PERMALINKMan, that really takes me back. I think Montag's wife disliked the bad candidate because he kept picking his nose during the debate. I think you are right JP. Of course, our one-party state isn't quite that blatant yet. Right? Kevin's link to the picture of Dean in the LA Times can be puntuated with this Dean photo in today's NYTimes. Reminds me of a Tupac line: "You *@!#@$ gonna die with your mouths open." Posted by: -pea- at January 21, 2004 08:47 AM | PERMALINKI think your absolutely right Kevin. When the president speaks, he does it in a big room full of people. He's addressing those people, they clap and cheer, and there's a lot of natural energy surrounding the whole thing. This is what the response needs. Jeebus, looks like a repeat of the pre-November 2002 message, almost exactly with the same "Bush is bad so don't vote for him" campaign that is patterned exactly the same as in 2002. The ever soft-spoken John Edwards and with Kerry's ego flashing that 2002 election fall-out re-do that promise another lose in 2004 makes me sick to my stomach. And Clarks talks about using NATO to fight terrorism which will certainly appeal to the conserative types if not the liberals. As Josh Marshall states in his interview with Soro's (funny how Josh doesn't address this aspect of Clark's wanting to go back to NATO problem?) that Josh states: "And NATO may be strained, but it hasn't collapsed." And like Soro's himself states: In the case of Kosovo, NATO did constitute such a body, because Kosovo is in Europe, and NATO is basically an alliance of European countries. In the case of Iraq, NATO would not be sufficient, because Europe is no more legitimate than the United States as an intervener in the Middle East. It's like I a said before, Kosovo is NOT Iraq. Clark can't do Iraq like Kosovo but of course Clark is fighting to replace Bush so I guess it is well that Clark aligns his plans parallel to that Bush in order to peal off Bush's support base and make it hard to pin Clark down. It's a good strategy really, but of course to liberals like myself it's that talk about going thought NATO and NOT going back to patch things up with the UN, that I don't like. Josh as usual shows his viseral hate for Howard Dean. Along the lines of last night's post about what I see as Dean's poor post-Iowa strategy, see the post on the front page of his website this morning. The first half of it reads more like a history or an obituary of the campaign than a promo for it. -- Josh Marshall Washington Post isn't in to promotion, really Josh. I must admit that I'm suprised that Dean is still ahead in the polls in N.H. today. Dean does have a control problem. BUT WHY ISN"T ANYONE TALKING BUSH? Bush looks like he just gone insane to me with all the statements he made in last nights SOTU speech. As Saletan writes: Meanwhile, he (Bush) continued to stretch the definition of WMD possession to justify the Iraq war. "Already, the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations," said Bush. Not WMD, mind you, but "related program activities," whatever that means. AND this part: But on the larger principle he (Bush) cited, he has been a disaster. "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible," said Bush. "And no one can now doubt the word of America." Are you kidding? Even Republican foreign policy experts concede that the still-unsubstantiated Iraqi WMD claims the administration tried to foist on the world have undermined our credibility. A day before Bush's speech, the Washington Post observed, "Already, in the crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions, China has rejected U.S. intelligence that North Korea has a secret program to enrich uranium for use in weapons." Conseratives love those bibles statues in the court houses so they should read the part where that says lying is a sin. Bush is lying thought his teeth. Big media Matt now has his take on the SOTU up now (via google) in the Top Story section. Just one year after his now-infamous claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy African uranium for use in Iraq's apparently nonexistent nuclear-weapons program, President George W. Bush has once again chosen to paint a picture of the State of the Union -- and, indeed, the world -- that is essentially fraudulent "that is essentially fraudulent"??? Jeebus Kevin, I have to wonder what Republicans would say if that was Clinton hyping those SOTU lies? They would have a massive cow-but Dem's just better not get angry-right. Howard Dean might end-up being histroy but he was not wrong to be angry. It's like the US is sick are something if everyone in American though the SOTU speech was in anyway truthful - Bush got up and lied to us all over again just like he did in 2002. Americans sure do like being lied too=, in post 9/11 American. The Democrats still don't have clue about what to do. Posted by: Cheryl at January 21, 2004 09:10 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Here's another suggestion: Instead of having another speech as a response to Bush's speech, how about having a discussion? You could get a bunch of Democratic Senators and Congressmen to discuss what they agree with, and what they disagree with. That's the sort of thing I would actually like to watch, instead of a second speech. That would make a big contrast with the atmosphere of the President's speech, but it wouldn't necessarily be a negative contrast. The participants would be more informal and (hopefully) less scripted. I know that's dangerous, but it would be more fun. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at January 21, 2004 09:17 AM | PERMALINKKevin: I hear your pain. It is hard to forgive a crappy public speaker - especially when it was not extemporaneous - They KNEW it was coming. Give a presentation to millions.... and they gave it to Pelosi??? It was a sales presentation to millions of potential clients - and they had someone from accounting give the presentation. Swing and a MISS. Strike one. Posted by: Californio at January 21, 2004 09:19 AM | PERMALINKI see that son volt had the same idea, about a forum, rather than a speech, in response. Posted by: Daryl McCullough at January 21, 2004 09:25 AM | PERMALINKLet us fervently hope that the next "response to the SOTU" speech comes from a Republican. I'd hate to think we'll actually need your advice... Posted by: eyelessgame at January 21, 2004 09:29 AM | PERMALINKconservatives love those bibles statues in the court houses so they should read the part where that says lying is a sin. Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: J'accuse! Posted by: Troy at January 21, 2004 09:39 AM | PERMALINKDan Perreten I'm a disheartened (former?) Deaniac, but this incompetence at the top is why we Deaniacs were so angry at the "Washington Democrats" and looking for someone who could shake things up. It's looking like Dean's not going to be the guy, but to whom do we look now? This is Dem's problem with trashing Dean. What do Democrats do now? When they can't get anrgy, because Dean tried that and Democrats (like Al From and Lieberman) trashed him for it. This is why Howard Dean should have played what Josh Marshall called his "Defection card"--Because what is going in Washington is so out of touch with American's real needs and wants right now that the problem is bigger than games over party politics. If Al Form thinks that Dean isn't a good Democtrat because he has a "viseral hate" for Bush that isn't shared by quote "most Americans," why did Dean play the Democrat loyalist game? It was a mistake for Howard Dean to play to loyalist game. It's to the point in my book were I'm ready to call on Ralph Nader because the Democratic Party is simply NOT cutting it. I can't support Kerry or Edwards, as Democrats they did NOTHING. Nor do I support Clark's going back ONLY to NATO. Clark was a lobbyist peddling to war related lobby items just prior to his bid for office. So now Clark wants to go back to NATO only, so gee how corporate lobby conscious of Clark to say only NATO can help because the UN is "unwilling and unable" to do so --Clark is lying just like Bush is. We better not get in the way of the corporate money right Clark. Well at least we know how Clinton is funding Clark though DLC corporate clearhing house, right. Damn, I wish Howard Dean would stop and think about what he's saying right before opens his stupid mouth most of the time. "Now, back in my marketing days I used to enjoy talking to groups. I don't know why, I just did." Resolved: Kevin Drum should start using his enjoyment of speach making to help defeat George W. Bush in November. Posted by: Decnavda at January 21, 2004 10:07 AM | PERMALINKKevin, Bill Richardson (governor, D-NM) offered a great Democratic response in Spanish on Univision. Posted by: ch2 at January 21, 2004 10:08 AM | PERMALINKCheryl said: Josh as usual shows his viseral hate for Howard Dean. Along the lines of last night's post about what I see as Dean's poor post-Iowa strategy, see the post on the front page of his website this morning. The first half of it reads more like a history or an obituary of the campaign than a promo for it. -- Josh Marshall Washington Post isn't in to promotion, really Josh. Josh Marshall was referring to the post on the cover page of the Dean for America site. And he's absolutely right. Posted by: David at January 21, 2004 10:12 AM | PERMALINKI think it might help if your oppo speech person had something to say that hadn't been heard before. SOTU's are usually mediocre because a laundry list of odds and ends gets shoved into a fairly well-written speech by WH aides who fancy themselves editors ( case in point - " steroids " ). That's not hard to beat in two minutes with something catchy and dramatic but neither party can usually muster the daring to do something clever so some Congressperson comes in to ramble. Posted by: mark safranski at January 21, 2004 10:22 AM | PERMALINKSorry I got my reference wrong, I didn't follow the link and just assumed but... Josh Marshall is usally never right about anything. Marshall wasn't right about Kevin Pollack's book, and not about the war in Iraq or about Clark being able to defeat Bush, perhaps as a conservative, Clark might beat Bush but NOT as liberal minded candidate. Liberals are looking for a diplomat but the conservative minded-liberal is looking for war hero. Clark can sure tell us how to fight in Iraq but NOT how to get out of Iraq or patch things up with the UN - Clark like Bush, doesn't want anything to do with the UN. That is something only a season diplomat problem solver can achieve. Iraq is NOT Kosovo. I serously doubt NATO will help with Iraq but it certainly cannot help with the US's terrorism problem, only the UN can do that. Clark is unexperienced in anything other than war and as James Carville said on NPR this weekend-Clark is untested as of yet. Clark has declined to show up for any of debates other than the one with Ted Koppel. THAT debate is where Clark told us that the UN was "unwilling and unable" to help with Iraq-but that take on Iraq pre-dates the time we knew Clark was acting as a lobbyist for war related corporations. Once that coward - or perhaps just not quite ready for prime-time
Clark shows up for a debate -will I'm sure conservatives will love Clark
-- liberals won't. Evan Bayh was on FNC after the SOTU, and I thought he did a really great job. Anyone else catch him? Posted by: Fredrik Nyman at January 21, 2004 10:55 AM | PERMALINKThe energy really was a problem. I think the best response to the President came during the speech. When Bush started saying, "Portions of the Patriot Act are set to expire..." and the Democrats started applauding during the inappropriate and awkward pause. I've tried to expand on why I think this is one of the best ways to respond to Bush and his statements here: http://highway4.org/campaign_2004/bushs_verbal_vulnerability.html Somehow I doubt the debates are going to be structured in a way that allows this type of response. Such a response is going to take more of a speaker than either Pelosi or Daschle offer. Now, which one of our candidates is it? Posted by: James at January 21, 2004 11:40 AM | PERMALINKSome one mentioned upthread that they would like to have seen Al Franken do a rebuttal. Well he did and you can listen to it. (Page down a little to get to it.) Posted by: Claude Muncey at January 21, 2004 02:14 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you're getting desperate! HA! The dems will do anything! Posted by: bj at January 21, 2004 02:18 PM | PERMALINKThe SOTU responses have always been awful no matter which party was doing them. I think this is a great idea to liven them up. Posted by: Stuart at January 21, 2004 02:47 PM | PERMALINKGreat idea, Kevin. The Grateful Dead did this with one of their studio albums, actually bringing in a live audience and recording in front of them. The Dems should take a tip from the Dead -- and Kevin. Posted by: Deadhead at January 22, 2004 07:48 AM | PERMALINKNext time the dems should ask someone who's not all Botoxed out (Pelosi) to do the talking for them. creepy! Posted by: DBL at January 22, 2004 04:40 PM | PERMALINKVery interesting site. Of course, since the corrupt democrat establishment has never cared what any reasonable citizen thinks, your suugestions will go unheard. Personally, I like to flush my toilet whenever a democrat has been passed. Just doing my part to keep the democrats at home in the sewers of America. Posted by: stickrshok at March 3, 2004 10:43 PM | PERMALINKSWING FOR DOLLARS XXX PICS TAXI CAMS my kinky wife all amateur movies bignaturals boys first time captain stabbin mpegs forced fuck her face gaysugardaddy Posted by: mr skin at June 30, 2004 08:10 PM | PERMALINK6507 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com Posted by: Viagra at August 7, 2004 05:14 PM | PERMALINK8792 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden? http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com Best XXX Sites - 1139 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com Posted by: online poker at August 10, 2004 08:26 PM | PERMALINK3571 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com Posted by: cialis at August 11, 2004 01:20 AM | PERMALINK5356 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com Posted by: buy viagra at August 13, 2004 07:29 PM | PERMALINK4505 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com Posted by: online poker at August 15, 2004 10:41 PM | PERMALINK7288 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com Posted by: play blackjack at August 17, 2004 02:03 AM | PERMALINK4107 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is 2001 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto Posted by: debt consolidation at August 19, 2004 01:17 AM | PERMALINK4177 http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for 7629 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 10:47 AM | PERMALINK4090 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINK1382 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 10:15 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
