As an atheist, I can say that choosing between Gore and Bush was six of one or half a dozen of the other.
In his speech tonight, Gore referred to “God” six times according to the transcript. The only reason he didn’t call on the almighty more than he did was because he’d already lost, so he didn’t have to be concerned about the bible-thumper vote.
Stoidela, what did you expect from the President-elect?
Of course he recycled bits and pieces of his stump speech; that’s what the victors always do when elected. But he also gave due recognition to the unusual circumstances of this election and made a reasonable attempt at beginning a process to mend the partisan acrimony.
He did and said the right things. Was he brilliant and eloquent about it? Well, brilliance and eloquence in political speech are pretty rare, even among the brilliantly eloquent. Let’s set reasonable expectations for the man. All I ask of him is that he follows through on that “uniting, not dividing” he promised us.
I think that there were several things that president-elect George W. Bush had to accomplish with this speech.
Acknowledge Gore’s Concession
This was probably the easiest part. All you really have to do is earnestly congratulate him on a good fight and move on. As far as healing the wounds that resulted from a hard battle I am skeptical as to whether a speech can do that. He did point out that in the end we are all Americans and that was fine.
Reassure the Republican Base
Even though the country seems divided he had to ensure the people that voted for him that he was not going to abandon the issues he campaigned on. Now I believe he did do this, but I thought it could have been more elegant than ticking off point by point all of his campaign issues. Probably could have been done in half the time as well. I think this was the weakest part of the speech. Republicans and others that voted for him already know this stuff. What I am not sure is if going over each issue pissed any Democrats off.
I think that something like, “I want to take this time to assure my supporters that I am committed to the principles and issues that you felt were important to America. I would also like to say that these issues held much common ground with those of my opponent and together, as one nation, we can secure a better tomorrow…bla bla bla.”
Bring the Democrats along for the ride.
I think that he did point out that the two campaigns held many of the same principals and the divisions between the two on the details of the issues was not that vast. I am not sure if pointing out all of the Democrats that he had worked with in the Texas house helped or not. This message was directed at Democrats and people on the fence. I would guess it probably rang truer with the moderates.
Time for a Grade
As a supporter of Bush I was a little disappointed in the speech. I think it could have been more pointed and shorter. I had to go through some pretty intense speaking training for work and this does tend to make me a really critical audience. I am not sure how to get Bush to talk with a more “open face” with his furrowed brows. There is some little body language things that may tend to close him off to people who don’t like his message.
All in all I think he accomplished the most important objective which was to reassure his supporters that he would not get side tracked because the election was so close, but I think he may have done this at the expense of bridging the gap with the Democrats. I would have to give it a C+.
Actually, I started out thinking he did it really smooth and non-mumbly.
Then I recalled he was using a teleprompter, which is why he kept looking to the left and right, instead of straight forward.
Correct me if my tv wasn’t loud enough, but I swore I heard Bush say his opponent ran a superior campaign.
Did he say that?
I don’t think it worked all that well to speak from the Texas House. He rarely looked into the camera, and he was supposed to be speaking to all of America. I think it was too stagy.
Secondly, there was nothing natural about the way he spoke. He has a cadence when he speaks that never changes. Every sentence is delivered exactly like the last. That particular rhythm that he uses is pleasant enough when isolated, but since he repeats it endlessly it turns into a drone that makes it really hard to pay attention to what he’s saying.
This is a weakness of most politicians, I dare say. They could all use better public speaking skills. They have all blanded out on us. When I hear speeches from the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, they always seem so much more passionate, more real.
I really can’t stand they way politicians (including Al) bland themselves out to the point of meaninglessness in order to be acceptable to the most people. Why do we demand this of them? Argh…
Back to Dub: I heard last night something that completely stopped me in my tracks. Apparantly Dub doesn’t like meetings to run longer than an hour, and he doesn’t like memos to run longer than a page.
God help us.
stoid
nope “spirited” here : Read it for yourself
I heard part of his speech on NPR last night, and what I heard seemed like a good speech to me. He didn’t seem to be gloating over his victory and mentioned how this was a difficult end to a difficult campaign. I didn’t hear anything vindictive.
Bush isn’t as good at speechifying as Gore. Gore’s had about three decades to practice; Bush has had less than one.
I didn’t support Bush because I thought he’d make the best speeches.
I supported him because more of his policies make sense than Democratic policies (particularly financially); and I think he will put together a kick-ass Cabinet.
I thought they both did fine. I wish that Bush would have skipped the part where he promised “prescription drug benefits for seniors” AGAIN (Dear Lord, is this the only problem our seniors face?), but overall he did better than I thought he would do.
Personally, I think he’s an all right guy. It showed class to stay out of the fray while the court battle was being waged. And I agree that he’s smart enough to pick out some really brilliant people to advise him.
It was sure nice to see Laura Bush smile for once. I can’t imagine the stress she and Tipper have gone through these past few weeks.
not a bush fan, but already tired of folks churning up nothing just to berate him. who likes 2 hour meetings and 3 page memos? stoidela, have you ever sent a five paragraph business memo to a large group of people? you spend two hours wording things just right and spiffy and people read the first two sentences and toss the rest! sounds like dubya has a little business experience. so what?
Gee, I don’t suppose you’d like to share where you “heard” this little tidbit, since you apparently swallow it hook line and sinker and expect us to do the same? I suppose, if you made it up and said it out loud, you can legitimately claim you “heard” it. :rolleyes:
Well, I wouldent mind memos longer than a page but I wouldent even have 1 hour meetings:)
Well, it had to have been one of the following
CNN
Fox News
C-Span
NBC
CNBC
MSNBC
Those are the channels I was watching last night, and for the last 36 days. I heard it on one of them, but since I bounce from one to the next, I can’t be certain which. I am tempted to say NBC, since that was the channel I chose for watching the actual speeches themselves.
stoid
I agree. Personally, I would suggest that all politicians take a public speaking course, AND a beginning acting course. Bush’s less-than-spectacular public speaking skills have always been his biggest flaw (or so it seems… all of his detractors seem to rely on that argument).
However, anyone who saw his appearance on Oprah would agree that he does significantly better A: while seated, and B: with smaller groups (i.e. less than 200 million people). So I’m not too worried about him botching Peace Talks or something.
I didn’t watch the President-Elect; I went to bed after the concession speech. I have seen only clips from the speech by Mr. Bush, so I won’t comment on content.
As I pointed out in the thread on Mr. Gore’s speech, very few politicians today can deliver really good speeches. Mr. Gore, as we know, has trouble avoiding that smarmy, “I’m so smart and know so much” tone that, when it breaks into humor, rarely sounds natural. For Mr. Bush, as again evidenced by the speech the other night, public speaking is no easier. His irritating habit of sticking his tongue between his lips while pausing between phrases tends to make him look a bit addled, which he often compounds by cocking his head to one side; it does nothing to enhance his oft-stated perception as somewhat less than an intellectual heavyweight. He shows so little emotion in his formal speeches, that it is hard to know if he has any actual personal investment in what he is saying; one of the key indicia for telling if a person really believes in what they are saying is the level of emotion that comes through.
However, from what I heard, he didn’t sound like an idiot, he apparantly said everything you would want him to say, even if he said a bit more than that. The hardest thing in writing a speech is finding a way to limit it to what is actually necessary and no more; ask Edward Everett. He didn’t pound on Democrats, and indeed his use of the Texas House of Representatives was calculated to reinforce one of his primary themes during the election campaign, the ability to reach across the aisle and cooperate.
Neither speech was a masterpiece; Mr. Gore probably rates better on the basis that he had the harder speech to make (avoid the sore loser tag) and he kept it short and simple. Mr. Bush did what he had to, said a bit too much, but certainly didn’t look un-presidential.