What We Can Learn From Dave

lettermanA few weeks ago, in the days of Joe Wilson II vs. the president and Kanye vs. Taylor Swift, I spoke to a college communications class. Having seen so many recent public apologies, one of the students asked me how I’d go about writing a convincing apology for someone.

Frankly, I have no idea. I’ve never been in that situation, which is fortunate, because if you’re working for someone who finds himself apologizing a lot, you may not have a job much longer.

But I did offer my general opinion that apologies should be sincere and not overwrought. Not everyone will believe you – at least not right away – but you’ll help your cause by getting straight to the point and explaining that you know what you did was wrong and that you plan to demonstrate your contrition in both words and actions.

Then came David Letterman’s blackmail/sex-with-staffers incident. And from now on, if people ask me how to write an apology, I’m going to point them to those videos.

In the first, last Thursday, Letterman didn’t actually apologize for anything. He simply acknowledged the situation – he was extorted as a result of behavior that could be deemed embarrassing. With just the right amount of levity, genuine fear, and upront-ness, Letterman managed to get the audience to applaud the fact that he had sex with members of his staff. If you can get people to cheer your dicey behavior, you’ve exceeded all expectations. Read More »

Channeling Peggy Noonan

If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Peggy Noonan should be blushing right now.

On Friday, in her Wall Street Journal column, Noonan lamented the recent passing of the greats of the media and commentariat – Safire, Irving Kristol, Walter Cronkite. “The Elders” she called them, and asked if anyone angling to replace them is fit to carry the mantle of the wise, thoughtful opinion-shaper. Or are we going to be besieged by “the ranters,” the worst of the cable and talk radio hosts who believe anger is a proxy for wisdom?

Today, a contributor to the sports blog Deadspin offers a replication of Noonan’s column. But in this version, the Elders are the (semi-)greats of the gridiron.

Noonan’s column starts this way:

When William Safire died the other day, we lost one of the Elders of journalism and the argumentative arts. We’ve been losing a lot of them lately: Walter Cronkite, Bob Novak, Don Hewitt, Irving Kristol. “The stars seem to be going out one by one,” said Howard Stringer at Cronkite’s memorial.

The Deadspin column begins:

When Chad Pennington dislocated his shoulder the other day, we lost one of The Elders of football and the quarterbacking arts. We’ve been losing a lot of them lately: Marc Bulger, Donovan McNabb, Matt Hasselbeck, Daunte Culpepper. “The stars seem to be going out one by one,” said Trent Dilfer at Pennington’s press conference. Read More »

Obama, Copenhagen and Chicago: Unpresidential

Like most Americans, I have been charmed and beguiled by President Obama’s presence on the stump.  His winning persona and powerful rhetoric are his best weapons.  But is that all there is to him?

President Obama’s decision to go for broke in Copenhagen was reckless and unpresidential.  It betrays a confidence in his rhetorical power that borders on the egomanical.  It is certainly, like all things Obama, ego-referential. 

Imagine!  How could the world reject Chicago after hearing a personal appeal from President Obama?  After hearing him recount,with sadness, his personal history of uprootedness?  After hearing him extol a metropolis that feels like a small town, and his retelling of the Great Fire of Chicago?  (Where was Carl Sandburg’s “HOG Butcher for the world”?  Not politically correct.)

Now the president has to fly home with nothing to offer the hungry press in the back of the plane than Air Force One Peanut M&Ms.  When he arrives, he will have to contend with the simultaneous announcement that the United States has just under 10 percent unemployment.

Just as no general can win a battle with cannons alone, this president can no longer rest on the big gun of his rhetorical presence.

A Muscular Meeting Strategy

Politico’s Mike Allen prints a White House statement about the National Security Council meeting held yesterday to discuss the president’s options in Afghanistan. Conclusion: The best way forward is more meetings – at least three more in the White House and many more with Congress, a process that will take weeks.

This is the president’s prerogative. What I find interesting is how the statement is classic Washington over-hype. It’s meant to sound very muscular and confident, but actually says nothing except “we’re still thinking.” Nothing like “engag[ing] in a candid assessment” to light a fire under people.

Readout from the Press Secretary on the President’s National Security Meeting on Afghanistan and Pakistan: Read More »

Can We Learn Any Lessons From Qadhafi’s Speech to the UN?

Last night, I ran into a friend of mine who works for our ambassador to the United Nations.  Before we’d even said hello, I blurted out, “I need to see a transcript of Qadhafi’s speech.”

I wanted to look at it, not as a policy document, but as a speechwriter.  What makes a speech an international disaster?

He had gotten so many requests, that he had it waiting on his blackberry, ready to forward.

Well, start with the word count.  Over 11,000 words.

Just for comparison, the Gettysburg Address clocked in at under 270 words.  Most state of the union addresses run somewhere in the ballpark of 5,000 words.

Other than a commendation from the Fidel Castro school of oratory, speeches of that length really show a tremendous lack of discipline.  And when you’re asked to speak for 15 minutes (as he was), a tremendous lack of respect.

When I’m working on a draft and it gets close to 3,000 word territory, I know I’m pushing the limits of the speaker’s endurance and the audience’s attention span.

But let’s get into the text itself.  Qadhafi’s speech actually starts as if it is the product of a sane, rational mind.

This convention comes at the climax of a several challenges that face us all and that the world should unite and make serious efforts to overcome these challenges that constitute the common enemy.

Climate change, financial crisis, collapse of capitalist economy, food and water crisis, desertification, terrorism, immigration, spread of diseases…

Good, good.  Common challenges, actual challenges… and then it went off the rails.

Because he started talking about whether man created swine flu.

And talking about the threat posed by submarines.

And telling the US that we should reopen the investigation into the death of Martin Luther King.

And debating the validity of the UN itself.   Which, while using the UN as a platform to validate your ranting, is a bit like sawing off the tree branch that you’re on.

The next thing you notice is that the transcriptionist had to resort to using several question mark exclamation point combinations.

Why is that necessary!?  You should only be inciting flights of punctuational fancy if you’re a cartoon character.

In seriousness, his train wreck of a speech does remind us of some important things to remember when writing a speech.

  1. Signpost.  Your audience doesn’t know where you’re going with a speech.  They don’t have the page in front of them.  You need to tell them.
  2. You only get to say a couple of things.  If you try to convey every thought you have, you will convey none of the thoughts you have.  Choose the one or two ideas you want to get across.
  3. There’s nothing wrong with a bold or counterintuitive arguemnt, but use facts and stories to make your points.  An argument is different than an assertion.  Qadhafi made assertions.  Leaders must make arguments, allowing their facts to be scrutinized.

You begin to wonder if this is what happens to dictators.  On the plane over, did he tell his subordinates what he was thinking about saying, and fearing for their jobs and lives, they all fumbled all over themselves to telling him how pitch perfect his ideas were?

Or did he not tell them anything at all?

And that’s maybe the final lesson to take from this.

If you’re giving a speech, read it out loud to yourself and a couple of others first.  You’d be surprised how much of what you put on paper doesn’t feel right coming out of your mouth.

Oh, and if you’re still reading it when it comes time to actually give the speech, start trimming.

Obama’s (Truly) Soft Power

Wesley Pruden has a column quoting WHWG’s own Clark Judge at the Global Security Review conference in Geneva.

Clark said he was surprised by the depth of the skepticism about the President abroad.  “The impression emerged for me,” Clark says, “that Mr. Obama’s riveting rhetoric is in danger of turning from a plus to a minus.”

Tehran Talking Points

The Today Show had a segment this morning that brought forward family members of the three hikers who wandered into Iran and still remain in custody.

The hikers have been imprisoned for months now.  Their understandably distraught families brought a predictable element of pathos to this interview that seems to supercharge ratings.  But this story has been around awhile.  Why now?  

Today hooked it to Thursday’s talks between Iran and world powers in Geneva over Iran’s nuclear program. Meredith Vieira did the linking for Tehran, asking “if increase tensions will hurt chances” that the hikers will be released.

In other words, let’s put pressure on our own government to soft peddle the gravest issue of war and peace since the Cuban missile crisis, one involving the very safety of the tens of millions of people who watch Today, by linking it to the fate of the three hikers.

Thank you, Today.  You’ve given the Information Ministry reason to be proud.

William Safire, Reporter

When the Gray Lady hired William Safire, it set off a lot of nabob-nattering about the propriety of giving a column to a former PR flack who had worked for Nixon. 

Many speechwriters have become columnists, but none has matched Safire for his tenacious dedication to uncovering the truth.  Over the years, Bill Safire proved himself as the kind of columnist who reports on something greater than his opinion.  He wore out shoe leather to get to the bottom of things.  Opinions followed facts.

As newspapers give way to blogs–and The New York Times itself becomes a kind of uber-blog–it is a good thing to remember that the opinion business can begin with ground truth.

Words With Which to Woo

It’s Friday. Perhaps you don’t have any social plans this weekend. Perhaps you’d like to find someone special to spend your weekends with. Perhaps Mike Gerson’s been freaking you out.

Podium Pundits is here to help.

Online hooker-upper OkCupid presents a helpful analysis of which words win hearts and which words turn potential lovers cold. Based on 500,000 “first contacts” – the notes sent from an admirer to a fresh target – OkCupid sussed out the words and phrases most likely to lead to success.

What’s most interesting, given that we’re talking about online dating, is that “netspeak=fail.” Among the worst “words” to use in an introductory note are “ur,” “ya,” and “wat.” A victory for proper English.

Also, don’t go overboard on the physical compliments. I guess they come off a little shallow if ur only judging someone based on a picture. OkCupid finds that “sexy,” “beautiful,” and “hot” are sure to be met with a :(.

Weirdly, “hi” and “hello” are not good ways to start conversations. Instead, try “How’s it going?” or even “howdy” (apparently OkCupid is big in the south).

And the more you’re able to connect to a specific interest of your amour du jour, the more likely you’ll be to hear back. “Band,” “vegetarian,” “physics,” and “tattoo” are hits. Even “grad school” scores above average.

Finally, if you’re interested in connecting to someone who shares your religious beliefs, you should really try JDate, not OkCupid. “Atheist” trounced “God” in response rate. If you must bring up religion, you should be – in order of effectiveness – Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. But if you want to mention a specific God, you’re better off with Allah than Jesus.

(So maybe OkCupid isn’t big in the south.)

Overexposed?

From West Wing Writers associate David Litt:

Here’s a link to the New York Times online “Opinionator” feature, where West Wing Writers’ Jeff Shesol blogs about the demands of the 24-hour news cycle and the idea of presidential “overexposure.”

Sarah Palin in Asia

Sarah Palin spoke on Wednesday to an investor conference in Hong Kong. The Wall Street Journal published excerpts. Recognizing the limitations of reading excerpts, a few concerns arose.

Governor Palin’s remarks were organized under a loose banner of “common sense.” For instance, she described herself as a “common sense conservative” and said “common sense” is not on the side of liberalism. She said that given loose lending standards in the years leading up to the financial market collapse, the market behaved “exactly as common sense would expect it to.” And she heralded several “common sense” approaches to policy issues.

I wonder if this invocation of “common sense” strikes the same chord with a group of international investors as it does with hometown crowds. Same thought when she said, “We need to make sure that this regulatory reform that we’re talking about is aimed at the problems on Wall Street and won’t attack Main Street.” While I’m generally sick of the whole Wall Street/Main Street construct, it seems especially ineffective before an international audience.

As comfortable as Palin can be talking about domestic issues such as energy and health care, she seems at times to be a little out of her depth on more specialized matters. Read More »

Matt Latimer’s Speech-Less, Round Two

Bruce Bartlett lists my prior response on Matt Latimer’s Speech-Less as being among those reflexive, circle-the-wagons Republican responses to criticisms of George W. Bush.

Actually, my reflexive, circle-the-wagons reaction was against speechwriters betraying the trust of their presidents.  On substance, I have to agree with Bartlett that Latimer offers disturbing corroboration of what appeared to be so wrong with the second Bush presidency, especially in its disastrous second term.

Here is a quote from Latimer, after revealing how little thought went into communications, themes and messaging, as well as policy:   “The whole White House was like that–infatuated with decisiveness, dismissive of deliberation.”

First Amendment Smackdown

Congress’s most notable First Amendment warrior, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, is a little steamed about Democrats’ latest efforts to squelch opposition to government health care.

You may have seen that Humana, a health insurance company and provider of Medicare services under the Medicare Advantage plan, sent a letter to its customers letting them know that if Senator Baucus’s health framework passes, it would likely mean cuts to their Medicare benefits.

“Oh, no, sister,” Baucus replied. Humana can’t be expressing its political opinion. Humana should keep its mouth shut about how pending legislation may or may not affect its customers. And besides, as we’ve all heard, the Democratic health reform bills won’t interfere with anyone’s Medicare benefits – they’ll only eliminate “waste” from the system.

To enforce Baucus’s mandate, the Department of Health and Human Services sent a letter to Humana and other insurance companies warning them not to communicate with their Medicare customers and to remove any “misleading” and “confusing” information from their web site. Of course, “misleading” is really in the eye of the beholder.

The problem here is the First Amendment, which gives private entities the right to communicate pretty much however they damn well please. It’s the same law that allowed protestors to camp outside George Bush’s house and call him a war criminal – which one might consider to be a “misleading” statement if one weren’t insane.

Senator McConnell, who has fought against campaign finance reform and against anti-flag burning amendments because he takes his First Amendment seriously, doesn’t think the government should be gagging companies simply because it’s convenient for Democrats. On the Senate floor yesterday he asked: Read More »

Matt Latimer’s Speech-Less

William McGurn of The Wall Street Journal skewers his former hire, Matt Latimer, for writing a kiss-and-tell about his tenure in the Bush White House.

McGurn writes: “Bringing him [Latimer] into the Oval and getting him on Air Force One was a (losing) attempt on my part to get the president to warm up to him. These are distasteful things to have to say publicly about someone who once worked for you. And I would have taken them to the grave had Matt not used these props and the snippets of conversation he picked up to paint a highly distorted view . . .”

The merits of Latimer’s criticisms of the Bush years aside, I concur that it is bad form for a speechwriter to betray his president by revealing and hyping private conversations. More to the point, such tales can add up to bad history.  

There are any number of little moments, comments, asides, and funny observations about other political figures I had in conversations with President George H.W. Bush that could have been spun into worthless revelations once I was back in the private sector.

In truth, most of it was the flow of ordinary human conversation.  Presidents should be able to let their hair down and relax around their wordsmithing consiglieri.  

Perhaps the time has come for all hires for a White House speechwriting job to sign a non-disclosure.

Voices of Moderation

Last night, President Obama appeared on Late Show with David Letterman to reaffirm his position that people who oppose government health care are nuts, while he is just another in a string of great leaders who’ve tried to “bring about significant changes” in American life. You know, FDR, Reagan, Obama. (I think I found a kindred spirit for Matt Latimer.)

As the president said, “Whenever a president tries to bring about significant changes … there is a certain segment of the population that gets very riled up.”

FYI, he means the opposition. But you wouldn’t know it to look at what his supporters are saying.

There was, of course, Nancy Pelosi’s bizarre warning that people might get hurt if the opposition continues to speak. Then there was the DNC’s promise to “rain … hellfire” upon opponents of government health care. And today, Politico reports that a union coalition in favor of government health care has erected this billboard targeting Blue Cross:

HCAN

Remember, in the president’s estimation, these are the moderate voices for health reform.