Stubborn facts

john-adams-paul-giamatti-dvd-cover-artJohn Adams may have had really terrible teeth (at least as portrayed in the excellent HBO miniseries by Paul Giamatti), but he was a powerful orator, in part because he took seriously his famous observation that “facts are stubborn things.”

The full quote is:

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

If you want to get the full “Destimulating Facts” about the wasteful spending in this stimulus, check out the excellent compendium of pork and lard bits compiled by Spruiell and Williamson on NRO.

Exactly who is dragging their feet here?

I agree with Ed, but it doesn’t seem to me the Republicans are being obstructionist or even appearing that way, despite the President’s efforts to convey that impression. They’re not just standing athwart the stimulus bill saying “No,” they’re providing alternatives which might actually have a stimulatory effect and – another plus – seem to have the strong support in the polls.

The USA Today/Gallup poll released today, which shows approval of the current bill dropping by 12 points since January 11, also shows that 59 percent agree with the Republicans that tax cuts for business are the best way to go, as opposed to 22 percent who favor more government spending. And by 48 percent to 41 percent Americans want  to shave the bill by $200 billion.

The American people also want a bi-partisan bill, at least partly because they don’t trust either party to get something this big completely right. But Obama either doesn’t want to compromise or – as Clark as suggested – is too weak to stand up to Pelosi-Reed. So he builds up the sense of urgency while accusing the Reps of “foot-dragging.”

His communications problem here is that he is counting on the American people being less informed than they actually are. If American’s so overwhelmingly support the Republican compromises – including tax cuts and paring the overall cost – which the Democratic leadership is refusing to accept, then who exactly is dragging their feet?

As usual, Paul and John at Power Line are right on target here, saying that Obama is “diminishing himself” by carrying Nancy Pelosi’s water for her and making bankrupt arguments that the American people know are dumb.

GOP: Don’t Look Obstructionist

The power of the podium was in evidence this morning as President Obama announced his new team of economic recovery advisors. The president jumped on today’s dismal labor report to urge action on a stimulus bill. He also got in a few lashes at obstructionists in the Senate.

While he did not identify Republicans explicitly, the president is clearly hoping that Americans and the news media pick up his theme and go after the GOP for keeping the Democratic majority from doing its work. After spending the last few days filleting him for the Daschle mess and for losing the PR battle on stimulus, the Washington media are likely to support the president in this – hailing his remarks today as a robust and necessary attack in the stimulus war.

What can Republicans do to combat the message? Most importantly they must not look obstructionist as the economy sheds half a million jobs a month. This is where being a beaten down minority can help them.

Republicans should be all over TV today and for however long it takes, reminding Americans that Democrats control Congress. They should insist that they have alternatives to the ugly House bill that they’re ready to vote on, if only Harry Reid would let them. They should call on Mr. Reid to listen to the president and not waste any more time blocking attempts to get a good-enough bill passed.

At some point Republicans are going to have to vote on this. Josh and I have disagreed about the long-term message implications of the vote, but one way or another, they should vote sooner rather than later. Stimulus will pass, it’s just a question of when. It’s time for Republicans to look like they’re trying to get the train out of the station, rather than standing on the tracks.

Charlie Victor Romeo

One of speechwriters’ tools of the trade is economy of expression — not choosing a four-syllable word when a two-syllable one will do; not larding up a phrase with adverbs when a single tough verb would suffice; not taking an entire paragraph to express a sentence’s worth of ideas.  (And some might say, not using three examples when you only need two.)

With that philosophy in mind, take a look at the transcript of Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger and air traffic control as they worked together to deal with the catastrophe that had befallen America West 1549.  Most of their communication took place in single sentences or fragments — yet over a tense two minutes they managed to exchange a significant amount of information, including discussion of various options before the plane downed in the river.

A decade ago, my cousin, Bob Berger, wrote and directed an award-winning play called “Charlie Victor Romeo” that uses as its script the black box transcripts from six real airplane emergencies.  The play opened in New York and was extended five times in an entirely sold out run.  It is so realistic the U.S. Air Force has filmed it for use in pilot training.

I saw Charlie Victor Romeo performed in Washington DC a few years ago.  I wasn’t sure how I’d feel about watching these moments of horror reenacted.  But what struck me as a member of that theatre audience is what I see again in this transcript:  the heroic calm and concentration of team members under pressure, struggling relentlessly to put things right when everything has gone wrong.

Bravo.

First Job of a President

The first job of a president is to establish strength — that he is a player to be reckoned with in the Washington power game.  Different presidents have done this in different ways.  Reagan’s handling of the air traffic controller strike is the most widely cited.  But at some point, the forces in this city decide a president can’t be pushed around — or can be.

Establishing strength is a communications challenge.  A president can use words.  He can use actions.  He can use both.  But the message must get through, or he will spend the rest of his administration playing catch up.

I do not feel Josh (in his posting below) is fair to President Obama, saying that a credibility problem has developed these past few weeks.  Yes, the President has been dodging one beanball after another, all, incredibly, thrown by his own team.  As one Washington insider told me today, the non-tax payment and other Cabinet-appointee surprises are probably the result of the President pushing so hard to get everyone in place so quickly.  The vetters didn’t have time to do their jobs properly.  But Mr. Obama enjoys considerable public goodwill that should keep these missteps from tarnishing him personally with the American people — and, to be clear, I believe he deserves that good will.

His standing in the halls of power is a different matter.  At least temporarily, he saved himself through his “we screwed up” assessment of the Cabinet-appointment debacles.  But his moves before making that statement looked uncertain.  He required too long to enforce his campaign rule about standards in government — and the halls of power note.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as much as brushed off his initial post-partisan moves, including most importantly his remarks regarding taxes and spending in the stimulus bill.  In effect they told him — or appeared to tell him — to put away childish things… or go to his room and let the adults tend to their work.  Again, his response looked uncertain, exactly the wrong reaction at this impression-establishing stage of his tenure.

What can he do?  The President needs to have a fight — and he needs to win it.  In another administration, the obvious target would be the opposition party.  But the GOP is so weakened that beating them proves nothing.  Then, too, having run as a post partisan candidate, picking a partisan battle would undermine a central premiss of his victory. 

Incredibly, the President may find that he needs to pick a fight with the leaders of his own Congressional party — and do it soon.  For if he fails the strength test, it won’t be just the power jackals in this city that judge him weak.  It will our adversaries around the world.  And the consequences of them drawing that conclusion would be future tests of his strength in an entirely different arena, an arena not nearly so gentle as decidedly ungentle Washington.

Why So Quiet on Iraq?

purple-fingerMaybe I’m just used to hearing President Bush talk about Iraq all the time, but it seems like President Obama has been awfully quiet about Iraq’s provincial elections.

To recap, on Saturday Iraq undertook what have to be considered spectacularly violence-free elections for provincial councils across the country. Prime Minister Maliki, once written off by Washington nabobs and even urged to quit by Carl Levin, gained substantial traction after his party won a majority of the vote in most provinces where ballots were cast.

In supporting Maliki’s party, the Iraqi people apparently affirmed their support for his cooperation with the U.S. and rejected harder line religious parties.

U.S. forces stood ready to provide assistance to Iraq’s security forces if trouble arose, but thankfully they were largely uninvolved.

By any measure this is a success for Iraq and for the U.S. engagement in Iraq. The Washington Post called the elections “a political triumph.”

Yet President Obama issued a bland statement congratulating Iraqis for a “significant … step forward.” He referenced the elections only briefly in a pre-Super Bowl interview with Matt Lauer. And when Brian Williams asked the president this week about changing policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama didn’t even bring up the elections.

Read More »

It’s a Catastrophe!

Obama’s warning yesterday that failure to act quickly on the stimulus “will turn crisis into a catastrophe” demonstrates both the President’s great strengths as a communicator and what may well become his fatal flaw.

First the strengths: I don’t know who writes this stuff, Obama himself, his ace speechwriter, or some symbiotic combination of the two, but from a purely rhetorical point of view it was spot on. The alliteration of “crisis” and “catastrophe” worked without sounding contrived, and the not letting the “prefect be the enemy of the essential” was a nice twist of a well-worn phrase. Both we’re effective sound bites, which is what every speechwriter strives for in such circumstances.

And then, of course, there is Obama’s delivery and demeanor, which is calm, serious and restrained, with just enough humor to dispel any suggestion of arrogance, which sometime ago I thought would be his Achilles’ heel. All this has already carried him a long way and will continue to work for him for some time to come. Except for the fatal flaw, his real Achilles’ heel as it were…

Obama’s mounting problem is the radical disjunction between what he says and what he does, or as I’ve put it before, the credibility problems that arise when one’s rhetoric becomes increasingly unmoored from reality.

The Obama administration said they wouldn’t hire lobbyists and would have the highest standards in history, yet they’re hiring lobbyists and have tried to fill top posts with tax cheats. What’s the line, if they didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any standards at all?
Read More »

Cheney Speaks, Conservative Pulses Quicken

Cheney InterviewFormer vice president Dick Cheney sat with Politico for a wide ranging interview earlier this week, going on the record more forcefully than I expected to see just two weeks after the new team’s inauguration.

Cheney asserted that the Bush Administration’s controversial post-9/11 security policies were responsible for preventing attacks on the United States, and suggested that in planning to close Guantanamo and roll back authority for “enhanced” interrogation techniques, members of the Obama Administration might be acting more on the basis of campaign rhetoric than harsh reality.

The ex-veep also offered his (no surprise here) negative view of the nominee troubles President Obama has faced, seeing a potential “critical mass” of Democratic foul-ups that could be a juicy target for Republicans in 2010.

Given President Bush’s own pledge not to be on the radar in the months after leaving office, is Cheney’s willingness to go on offense kosher? I’m not sure. I tend to subscribe to the “bite your tongue” theory of leaving office – best to be neither seen nor heard, at least for a while.

On the other hand, Read More »

Editing the “War on Terror”

wotThe AP recently examined President Obama’s efforts to shift away from the phrase “War on Terror”:

Since taking office less than two weeks ago, President Barack Obama has talked broadly of the “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.” Another time it was an “ongoing struggle.”

He has pledged to “go after” extremists and “win this fight.” There even was an oblique reference to a “twilight struggle” as the U.S. relentlessly pursues those who threaten the country.

But only once since his Jan. 20 inauguration has Obama publicly strung those three words together into the explosive phrase that coalesced the country during its most terrifying time and eventually came to define the Bush administration.

The reason behind the shift is twofold. AP notes that the term “War on Terror,” linked as it is to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has become a sticking point in public outreach efforts to Muslims. The “War on Terror” is frequently viewed as a war that includes among its targets groups that not all Muslims see as terroristic.

There’s also a re-branding effort at work here. “War on Terror” is part of the George W. Bush brand and carries with it all the implications of the brand. As President Obama seeks to establish his own brand, particularly in the realm of foreign policy, he needs to find new ways to articulate his goals.

Read More »

From “Pig Wobble” to the U.S. Senate

Mark was not impressed with newly appointed Senator Roland Burris’ first remarks on the Senate floor, primarily because the focus of the Senator’s statement was an enthusiastic endorsement of Eric Holder.  But leaving our own opinions of the new attorney general aside, I think it’s worth noting the way Senator Burris opened his remarks — a skillful use of storytelling both as a window on his own life’s journey and as a frame for his strong support of a man he clearly admires:

M. President, with humility for an honor neither sought nor expected, I rise for the first time as a United States Senator.

At a time of great consequence for our country’s long march toward justice — and the moral compass we call the Constitution that guides our path — I rise in strong support of President Barack Obama’s nominee for the office of United States Attorney General, Eric Holder.

As we look toward the future, I begin with a few words about the past.

Back in the 1950s, there was a place in my home town of Centralia, Illinois, called the “Pig Wobble,” and it wasn’t hard to figure out why: Pig Wobble was the place where the horses, the cows, and yes, the pigs, from all the nearby farms, came to drink water.

It was also the place where the African American children came to swim in the summer time.

My friends and I swam in the Pig Wobble until the summer of my sixteenth birthday in 1953, when, after previous efforts to integrate the park swimming pool where only whites could swim failed, my dad finally had enough of his children swimming with the farm animals while the white children went off to the nice, clean neighborhood pool.

My dad and his minister who ran the local chapter of the NAACP determined that the time had come for black children to swim in the community pool.

They decided we would need an attorney to represent us.  There were no black lawyers in Centralia, so my father traveled to Chicago seeking legal assistance, but no lawyer was interested in representing us.

He returned home and the following day went to East St. Louis and retained a black attorney to represent us.

When the pool opened on Memorial Day, my brother and I, along with 3 other boys, swam and integrated the pool without incident.

Later we were home celebrating our accomplishment, but when my dad returned home he was very upset.  We questioned why, and he explained that the lawyer he hired did not show up.  My father then said “if we as a race of people are going to accomplish anything, we need lawyers and elected officials who are responsible and responsive!”

From that conversation with my father when I was sixteen, I set a goal for myself that I would try in my life and career to be responsible and responsive to the cause of justice.

When President Obama nominated Eric Holder to be Attorney General of the United States, my father’s words came to mind.  Eric Holder is the embodiment of what my father envisioned on that day. ..

Actually, He Didn’t Say That

I don’t want to be nitpicky, but I think it’s important to set the record straight on an issue that frequently gets misremembered, including in Thomas Daly’s post earlier this morning.

I’ve written before about how “Mission Accomplished” became a message nightmare for the Bush Administration. But it’s important to note that “Mission Accomplished” was on a banner hanging behind the president as he spoke; the words didn’t appear in his text.

Instead, what President Bush did say is that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.”

This was true. The battle of Iraq – the battle between Saddam Hussein’s forces and the coalition military for control of the country – had concluded successfully. 

The next phase of the war would be harder, which the president anticipated: “We have difficult work to do in Iraq…. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. Then we will leave, and we will leave behind a free Iraq.”

Not word-for-word Mr. Daly’s preferred construction of “I think the war will last a long time,” but pretty darn close.

The lesson from that day isn’t that the president needed to be more mindful of his words, but that even the right words can be eclipsed by the wrong visual.

The Truth Works

By Thomas Daly, Guest Contributor

It was so refreshing to hear the president yesterday. No big press conference, no convoluted statement just when talking about the Tom Daschle appointment for health secretary in an interview he said, “I screwed up”.

I was so excited by this. Not by the fact that he “screwed up.” But by the fact that we had a president who made a mistake and admitted it right away. From Water Gate to when President George W. Bush said on May 1, 2003, “Mission Accomplished” presidents hate admitting being wrong. They use rhetoric and double talk to try and cover up their mistakes. I think history would have been different if on November 18, 1973 Richard Nixon said, “I screwed up and I’m sorry” instead of, “I’m not a crook.” He might have saved his political career. Would history look a little kinder on the George W. Bush administration, if after “Mission Accomplished” thirty days later when we all realized it wasn’t over he said in an interview, “I spoke to soon; I think the war will last a long time.” And of course President Clinton would have saved himself some grief if he said, “I did have sexual relations with that woman.”

There is always time for words and rhetoric, and the power they wield. However, in some cases, speechwriters, public relations professionals and spokespeople are not needed. Sometimes all a person needs to do is tell the truth, admit he made a mistake and move on. In President Obama’s case I think it should give America a positive glimpse of what type of leader he might be.

Mr. Daly is the editor of Vital Speeches of the Day.

“I Screwed Up”

Tuesday afternoon President Obama tackled head-on the question of who’s to blame for the problems surrounding some of his nominees, including Tom Daschle.

 “I think I messed up,” the president told Katie Couric. “I screwed up in not recognizing the perception that … ordinary people are out there paying taxes every day and whether it’s an intentional mistake or not, it was sending the wrong signal. So again, this was something that was my fault.”

He made similar statements to all the network news anchors.

A clear, unfiltered, unequivocal acceptance of responsibility for a bungled effort is a good communications tool that must be used sparingly or else it begins to lose its meaning. Here it was used well.

The president wasted no time in making clear that he wasn’t satisfied with the way things were going and the message confusion being created: “I don’t want my administration to be sending a message that there are two sets of rules: one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes every day.”

Americans are suckers for a heartfelt apology – or at least the recognition that something has gotten “screwed up” and needs to change. This one should help the president, as long as he doesn’t need to make a habit of it.

Daschle’s Own Petard

With Tom Daschle now a victim of, among other things, his unreported use of a car and driver over the last few years, this video is making the rounds and getting laughs.

Digging into Stimulus

obama-shovelHere’s a web site sure to make Josh happy. StimulusWatch.org provides a list of projects around the country considered “shovel ready” by the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Every single project the mayors included in their “Main Street Economic Recovery” report is on the list, which is sortable in a variety of ways.

The projects aren’t funded yet. They’re essentially the mayors’ wishlists for what they’d like to do with federal stimulus funding once it’s available. Included with each project are its cost, location, and the number of jobs it might create.

The site designers have also made available a comments section, a vote tally (“critical” or “not critical” funding), and a wiki that allows people with knowledge of the projects to fill in some of the details.

For instance: The town of Laurel, Mississippi, would like $99,600 for “doorbells.” They expect to employ two people with the project.

Dallas, Texas, is ready to go on a $380 million convention center hotel, a project that could employ 3,800 people.

Dayton, Ohio, would like $1.5 million for its “Off the Streets” program, an initiative to reduce prostitution. This would actually result in job losses (though I’m sure it has other virtues).

Read More »