House of Eratosthenes

Gotta hand it to that Barack Obama. He can really deliver a speech! He’s better than anybody, and will always emerge as the all-time champion of speech delivery…

…provided His competition is an Alaska housewife holding no elective office whatsoever. Who holds a special reputation for being a dimwit. The word “special” meaning, of course, that it’s a reputation carved in stone, and whatever evidence has to be shunted aside to keep it going will be, and whatever fiction has to be written to prove it, also will be.

Neal Boortz is falling for it. Making a special point of assessing the speeches in terms of how they adapt to & help shape the emotional tone of the moment — after also making a special point of mentioning he isn’t qualified to do this.

I didn’t watch. If I had watched the speech last night any appreciation I might have had for the words spoken would have been clouded by the contempt I have for the man speaking them. I did, though, read the transcript this morning, and I’ll say this. It was a wonderfully crafted and expertly delivered address. President Obama – and you won’t hear me put those words together too often – delivered the exact right speech at the exact right moment in the exact right tone. I actually found myself getting all weepy-like this morning as I read the transcript.
:
Oh … and about Sarah Palin. Yesterday we saw why the Republicans just cannot even flirt with the idea of making her the GOP candidate for president in 2012. Compare her statement to Obama’s last night. Obama will eat her alive on the stump. Recognize that now to avoid carnage in the future.

Mmmm, hmmm. Well, if the argument begins & ends on the point that “majority viewpoint must prevail, be it right or be it wrong!” — then, it becomes something worth noticing that Boortz is being absolutely eaten alive in the comment section.

Our own blog-comment-poster friend Physics Geek speaks for me:

“Compare her statement to Obama’s last night.”

I can’t. For some reason, Obama didn’t have to respond to people calling him responsible for mass murder. If they had, you could probably have compared his response to Palin’s.

There is one criterion that is sufficiently general in nature, that they can be compared side-by-side though, and compared fairly. Believability. As Boortz pointed out, when you noodle this through with the left side of your brain, the hemisphere that is concerned with facts, hard sciences, what it all really means, etc. there are some real problems that surface in listening to Obama’s speech. Oh sure the emotion-driven right-side-lobe is having an awesome time of it, as is always the case when His Eminence intones. Wheeee!

But Obama just isn’t believable.

The hillbilly housewife from Alaska who isn’t running for anything, on the other hand, is.

Advantage Palin. Again.

I have to say, the more I hear people claiming “no she can’t,” the more I start thinking “yes we can!”

That the public, by and large, isn’t buying Teh Narrative is starting to give me some real hope. Maybe people are starting to see that in the media’s mind — that is, in the hive-mind of the left in general — Sarah Palin is exactly equivalent to The Right.

This is what they really think of us. All of us. “Sarah Palin” isn’t a real person; she’s a stand-in for all of us Bible-thumpin’, Jesus-humpin’, gun-packin’, NASCAR-watchin’, cousin-pokin’, tobacco-chewin’, beer-drinkin’, barbecue-eatin’ gap-toothed lunkheaded dimwits who don’t have the book larnin’ to realize how stupid we are and beg our betters to run our lives for us. Of course “Sarah Palin” is responsible for the tragedy — aren’t all right-wingers, at bottom, a bunch of obsessive deranged psychopaths with itchy trigger fingers?

I’m starting to see where I’m going wrong in all these “Sarah Palin for President” discussions. We here on this blog, and elsewhere on the right, are debating the pros and cons of Sarah Palin, an individual, historically-located, context-specific carbon-based life form. They, on the other hand, are performing what amounts to an exorcism. Maybe Jung could explain it. Either way, I’m starting to come around on the whole deal….
- Severian | 01/13/2011 @ 13:29
“It was a wonderfully crafted and expertly delivered address”

How would Boortz know if it was “expertly delivered” he “didn’t watch” it?

Good on the Physics Geek, bravo.

And Severian, great points.
- tim | 01/13/2011 @ 13:53
I did not watch the speech either. I suppose I should. And as a matter of fact, I promise I will.

Michelle Malkin said the same thing this morning. It was a great speech. I take Michelle’s word for it. If Michelle Malkin says President Obama gave a great speech, I have no doubt that he did. Kudos, Mr. President, and I mean that.

Now … I did hear some clips today, and I gotta say, I agree with the people who were a bit creeped out by the rock-star applause both in the introduction and during the speech.

I was a lot creeped out by it, actually.

From what I understand, if you just read the speech, it comes off fantastic. If you watch or listen to it — it just seems wierd. “Pep rally”. Good description.

I heard one caller say the President could have held up his hand and said “Please” — and changed the tone. I heard another caller, who said he’s no Obama fan, say the applause creeped him out but the President looked uncomfortable with it and did hold up his hand and it did get better. Another caller said all that was missing was the foam “We’re #1” fingers.

So … I don’t know.

That introduction, though. It was almost as if the guy was introducing Bono or something.

Just … wierd.

As Dennis Miller said … maybe we shouldn’t hold memorial services in athletic arenas.
- philmon | 01/13/2011 @ 14:18
Watched it.

Here’s the introduction by, I don’t know who.

“We are truly honored to have the leader of our great nation with us here tonight. (cheering) We are obviously saddened by the circumstances that bring President and Mrs. Obama to Tucson. But we are comforted [shout-out] we are comforted by their compassion and we are inspired by their determination to reach out and help. America has been blessed through its glorious history by visionary and comitted presidents, who — often at great personal sacrifice, step forward to lead us to better futures and greater hope. Barack Obama assumed the Presidency at a perilous time in our history. We are fortunate to have someone with his intellect, his energy, and his heart, to lead us forward PLEASE WELCOME — [wild cheering starts to build] the PRESIDENT of the United States, Barack Obama.” [Cheering builds to a wild, frenzied crescendo]

Nope. Sorry. It sounds like the President is about to speak at an award ceremony in his own honor.

In his defense, the President did keep it to a subdued “Thank you – thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.”

Here is how the president should be introduced at a memorial service:

“Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States.” Nothing more, nothing less.

Whoever decided to do this instead did it wrong.

The appropriate response should perhaps be brief polite applause, if anything.

Take away the introduction and the inappropriate response of the crowd, and it was indeed a great speech.
- philmon | 01/13/2011 @ 15:00
Take away the introduction and the inappropriate response of the crowd, and it was indeed a great speech.

This is shaping up to be the consensus opinion, and rightly so it seems to me.

I would add, though: If the first requirement for Obama to be the kind of President we need, is “stop being a goddamn egotist”…then that’s yet another indicator that He, and the job, don’t fit each other.

Kind of reminds me of Charlie Sheen playing a priest in that Three Musketeers movie.
- mkfreeberg | 01/13/2011 @ 16:19
My last comment turned (just about verbatim) into a post at my place with a link to a full 30 minute+ video (including the introduction… the PBS and Whitehouse version cut out the introduction)

And … a link to George Bush’s ~6 minute Virginia Tech speech. Say what you want about the man, he knew that decorum was called for.
- philmon | 01/13/2011 @ 19:18
“We are truly honored to have the leader of our great nation with us here tonight. (cheering) We are obviously saddened by the circumstances that bring President and Mrs. Obama to Tucson. But we are comforted [shout-out] we are comforted by their compassion and we are inspired by their determination to reach out and help. America has been blessed through its glorious history by visionary and comitted presidents, who — often at great personal sacrifice, step forward to lead us to better futures and greater hope. Barack Obama assumed the Presidency at a perilous time in our history. We are fortunate to have someone with his intellect, his energy, and his heart, to lead us forward PLEASE WELCOME — [wild cheering starts to build] the PRESIDENT of the United States, Barack Obama.” [Cheering builds to a wild, frenzied crescendo]

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????

No, I don’t own a television (the above is an excellent example of why,) and I have never been able to listen to that wooden, posturing fake. But if that’s really what the M.C. said, it’s beyond parody. That is the worst fucking thing I have ever encountered in my lengthening existence.

Jesus fucking Christ.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of The United States.” Exactly, and period.
- rob | 01/13/2011 @ 23:20
I’m having a problem with this quote from (teh) speech:

Obama – People are far too eager to blame problems of the world on those who don’t think like we do.

Think like we do? What does that mean? :~
- Kini | 01/14/2011 @ 02:08
From Boortz’ comment section:

But to wait until a big, televised event… to wait until AFTER it became widely known that his party had been wrong in all their early finger pointing? and then step in like the Voice of Reason (which was only even needed because of the attacks made by his party)? No, sorry. Not impressed with him at all.

Bingo.
- cylarz | 01/14/2011 @ 02:20
I love these discussions. Ever notice they only happen on the right?

The median — not “consensus” — opinion seems to be “good speech, lousy context, worse timing.” That’s my read, too. Reasonable people may differ. But I think it’s noteworthy that we’re even having this type of discussion at all. That is, we can wrap our heads around the idea that any given act can contain both good and bad — Jesse Jackson, for example, is (or at least was) admired on the right for the technical skill of his oratory, even though his ideas are sub-Marxoid nonsense.

It doesn’t work like that on the left. It’s either 100% pure awesome or 100% concentrated evil to those guys. Every speech Dear Leader has ever given is the best one in the history of human utterance…until the next one; meanwhile, I honestly think you’d have trouble getting a liberal to agree that the sun rises in the east if Sarah Palin was on record claiming so (typical responses would probably include “only somebody as stupid as her would need to say so” or “what is ‘east’ but a convention of language anyway?”, depending on the context and the pretentiousness of the liberal).

For the record, I thought the snippets of the speech I’ve read were pretty decent, and I think the timing of it– the “letting your base froth and foam for a few days in order to steer the narrative before stepping in as the Voice of Reason” thing, noted above — was Machiavellian brilliance. As far as shameless, soulless, disgusting partisan hack moves go, it’s a classic of the genre. And since shameless, soulless, disgusting partisan hack moves win elections, I have to give props to Our Glorious God-King. The only sour note — which might, in fact, negate the whole thing if the right can push it far enough into the narrative — is the weird pep-rally atmosphere. If Dear Leader had foregone that, he really could’ve had an Oklahoma City moment. But he can’t forgo that — he’s too big a narcissist. If I were the kind of soulless, shameless, asshole partisan hack I sincerely hope we have working for us, I’d splice those into every 2012 campaign commercial.
- Severian | 01/14/2011 @ 05:40
[…] entered a comment that, in Arsenio Hall fashion, makes you go “hmmmmmm…” It’s either 100% pure […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/14/2011 @ 06:27
Two things I’m going to gratefully file away for future use from Severian’s comment there:

Marxoid

and

(typical responses would probably include “only somebody as stupid as her would need to say so” or “what is ‘east’ but a convention of language anyway?”, depending on the context and the pretentiousness of the liberal).

Because I needed a term to use that implied “Marx Derived” while not necessarily being “Marx Orthodox”. That one’ll work.

The other underscores the fact that Severian, like myself, has been steeped in the halls of Academia and has not succumbed to hearing arguments like this and nodding in self-affirming agreement when they come up. Instead, he sees them for the absurdities they are.

Plus it made me laugh 🙂
- philmon | 01/14/2011 @ 06:50
Although … do I have to go lookup “Marxoid” now and make sure somebody else hasn’t reserved it as a sacred term that must not be used outside of any context but the one they’ve blessed?

It’s really hard to keep up with these rules.
- philmon | 01/14/2011 @ 06:53
Thanks Morgan. I was freaking pissed off when I wrote that over at Boortz’s site. I didn’t notice about ten other people had posted the same sentiment until after I hit “submit”.

I watched Barry’s speech and I will say that his baritone voice is a gift. If his speech were simply “Pound pastrami, said one note, can kraut, six bagels–bring home for
Emma.”, it would be hailed as something to replace the Gettysburg Address for historical significance. In any event, I tend to side withe Ace’s view of the speech: Obama let his cronies and accomplices blackball a private citizen for four days before making one statement against it. Now he gets to appear as GREAT HEALER rather than a Chicago-area ward heeler letting others do the dirty work for him. Again.
- Physics Geek | 01/14/2011 @ 20:57
PG,

I had made a conscious decision that out of the dozens of comments under Boortz’ post, yours was the most sensible one. I made absolutely no conscious note of your name whatsoever; hadn’t made the connection. Didn’t realize you were you until I went flailing around putting all the links together for this post.

Your sentiments were much more original than you give them credit for. Very well said, my man.
- mkfreeberg | 01/14/2011 @ 21:05
Don’t fret, Physics Geek. Happens to me all the time.

There’s a bit of comfort in it if you look at it right.
- philmon | 01/14/2011 @ 21:10
Severian, I remember being blown away as a younger man by Jesse Jackson’s “Common Ground” speech at one of the Dem conventions.

Yes, I think, as a rule, these rational acknowledgements of good on the other side and bad on our side are mainly on this side, or at least they seem to be.

Probably part of our image problem, really. We’re more likely to give credit where credit is due, where, as I’ve mentioned in comments across the interwebtubes over the last few days, as just an example:

One gets the feeling if Sarah Palin did a public service announcement encouraging kids to study hard and eat their vegetables, it would be scoured for the slightest thing to criticize.

And to paraphrase Severian, it would probably be something along the lines of “only someone as stupid of her would even bother mentioning it”, or “what are vegetables but a convention of language? ” “Study? Clearly she only means dead white men!”
- philmon | 01/14/2011 @ 21:18
I am not even willing to grant that there was anything particularly wonderful about Obama’s speech. It sounded to me like more of the same mealy-mouthed, hem-and-haw, all-things-equal progressive claptrap that we’ve come to expect from the president we know and love. No clear vision, no statement of determination to find and punish the man or men responsible for this evil, no mention of American exceptionalism, no reassurance that this event isn’t going to result in the further curtailing of our freedoms in the name of stopping that one-in-a-million person who would abuse those freedoms.

I don’t even think Obama is that great of a public speaker, Teleprompter or not. He says too many “uh” and “hmm” type sounds, and he’s completely lost without his prompter. Clinton, as much as I disliked him, at least was a masterful politician who was a gifted speaker and always seemed to know how to appeal to what people were feeling, much as I always disagreed with whatever was coming out of his mouth.

But this guy? Come on. And they said Bush was a crummy speaker? Riiiiight.
- cylarz | 01/14/2011 @ 21:26
As a soaring literary piece? I’ll go with pretty darned good.

They found the man. He’ll get punished. Or committed. Obama doesn’t believe in American Exceptionalism, and while that would be great to work it in somehow to a memorial speech it’s hardly necessary. He did say it wasn’t the fault of rhetoric (three days late, after his underlings were able to extract as much damage as possible) …. and I disagree, he is great with a teleprompter, and has a voice like buttah.

Off prompter … different story (except for the voice).

What he is is a showman, like his father was. But as this event underscored, he’s kind of a one-trick pony. He has a dramatic style, a southern baptist revival preacher’s cadence, an ability to read well and a great voice. Plop a prompter with some good writing in front of him, and he’s a machine. Gold. After you watch him a while you notice it’s a trick and it doesn’t come off as genuine emotion, which is why he comes off flat to those who have paid attention over the months and years.

You don’t have to be a great speaker to change your tone and attitude to be appropriate to the occasion.

But this guy really only has two tones. Teh Great One, and The Lecturer.

I once thought maybe at least he’d be a good guy to have a beer with. But now … I think he’d bore me silly with himself either trying to impress me with his rhetorical style or with his immense … um … “knowledge”.
- philmon | 01/14/2011 @ 22:00
As someone who lived and worked in the Atlanta area, I listened to Neal Boortz from about 1996 until 2007. I think I understand him well enough. He can’t stand Palin because she is unapologetically a Christian. Secondly, even though staunch pro-life advocates have problems with her for not being unequivocally pro-life. She seems like a pro-lifer to Boortz, and that’s a sin too great in that man’s world.

Boortz wants a fiscal conservative who is pro homosexual and pro choice. He speaks as if the vast majority of centrists and moderates believe the same way he does, which they probably do. The problem is that I don’t think the vast majority of the total populace is that moderate or centrist.
- Moshe Ben-David | 01/15/2011 @ 13:31

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

The Two SpeechesThursday, January 13th, 2011

The Two Speeches
Thursday, January 13th, 2011