I’ve spent a number of years writing speeches, and this is something I wish I’d written. Noah Millman writes an impassioned, impressive, positive, and visionary speech for President Bush. One of the hardest tricks for a speechwriter is capturing the right cadence and the right words for the person they’re writing for. It’s exceptionally tricky, and the wrong words for the wrong people can leave the wrong impression.
Millman gets it right.
If I were the White House, I’d at the very least have Bush’s speechwriters study this speech – and I’d even consider using it. If Bush can pull something off like this, I think it will give him a much-needed shot in the arm for this campaign. This is the kind of message we need – a message that explains what Bush will do and explains why these policies benefit America. It’s not the collection of vague platitudes that was the Kerry speech, but a speech that shows exactly what this country can do to become stronger in the next four years, both abroad and at home.
This is the kind of speech Bush should give.
If I were Bush, I’d go as vague and platitudinal as possible in my acceptance speech. If not for the fact that millions of Americans follow the Randy Kelly ethos of “don’t switch horses midstream even if the horse can’t stand up in the water”, Bush would be behind by double digits. The last thing Bush needs is to rub the radical Republican Party platform into the face of Ed Koch and his ilk, which probably consists of 10% of Bush’s voters.
Given that we’re facing a record deficit, I don’t think I would dwell on the fact that I passed THREE tax cuts, most of which had negligible effects on the bottom lines of most Americans. Given the fact that the markets aren’t up to where they were when Bush took office, I think I would conveniently forget about my 2000 pledge to force the markets to absorb the Social Security trust fund. I don’t believe Bush would have much to gain by advertising the fact that he wants to turn our public school students over to Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Bush needs a targeted message to different regions of the country, but that can only be done in campaign ads. At his nomination acceptance speech, he’d be much safer in mimicking Kerry’s approach….only selling fear and continuity rather than optimism and change. The only way Bush can win this election is to make sure the people who he has terrified continue to be terrified. Throwing out red meat to the party faithful on non-defense-related issues is unlikely to do him much good nationally, and may in fact deter many of his moderate supporters whose only allegiance to him is based on the fact that they think he’ll kill more Arabs than Kerry will.
Mark gives out great advice on Bush’s speech…if you are John Kerry. Mark advises Bush to mimick Kerry’s speech in being vague and filled with platitudes…yeah, look what it did for Kerry.
Bush has a great record and great policies and a great vision…he just needs the right words to express that.
Another Thought, Bush’s problem is that only a third of the country believes Bush has a great record and great policies. Many others may agree with some of his policies, but take issue with others. The more Bush’s speeches cater to people like you, the less likely soccer moms and even some NASCAR dads are to align themselves with him. Bush needs to stick to what he does best if he’s serious about holding the White House for another four years….and what he does best is fear-peddling. He has nowhere to go but down if he stops warning the masses about the inevitable terrorist Armageddon and starts reading aloud from the Republican Party platform.
Yes, and Bush should certainly take the advice of someone who lives on Planet Liberal in which evil corporate Republican fatcats plunder the noble proletariat.
If Bush is trying to convert people like you, he’ll lose, because you’ve already made up your mind.
Bush can and should reach out to people who are swing voters, who haven’t heard anything about Bush but what has been filtered through the viscerally anti-Bush media. If he can get through the media smokescreen, he could improve his numbers on key issues, which would give him the grounds to improve his polling numbers. (A direct bounce seems unlikely since incumbants rarely get convention bounces – although it’s not impossible for that to happen by any means.)
The speech is good, and it has the advantage of being true.
Rather than worrying about appealing to sections of the electorate, Bush should do what he does best – doing the right thing.
Democrats have the advantage of being able to “run to the center” to win elections.
Republicans, like Bush 41, don’t have that advantage. Conservative values win elections. Pandering to swing voters loses them.
Meaning of course, that Bush 41 ran as a moderate and lost.
Jay, no one was suggesting that Bush tailor his speech to appeal to me. What I am suggesting is that bragging about three tax cuts during wartime with a record deficit, waging war against public schools, and re-threatening the privatization of Social Security will not resonate with most swing voters. Bush’s bet at winning this election is to suggest that the brakes should not be applied to wheels in motion (even if those wheels are spinning aimlessly in neutral, such as they are with Bush). The last thing Bush needs is to distract dimwitted swing voters with the extremist propaganda of the Republican Party’s domestic platform when he’s likely to win over many of them by peddling paranoia.
The fringe right like yourself and Another Thought will vote for Bush even if he doesn’t toss up blood-red meat to the evangelical and robber baron crowd at the RNC at his acceptance speech. Nationally, his best bet is to avoid the anti-populist “specifics” that could cost him West Virginia and Florida and keep this an “us versus them” dynamic where the current administration are the only people possibly capable of keeping America safe and fulfilling our duties in Iraq over the next four years. This is what he should hype at his convention speech. Now granted, this is unlikely to win him many votes in Minnesota and Wisconsin. My take on the situation in the Upper Midwest is that the swing voters are economic conservatives who would be in the Bush column by are repelled by the war.
Thus, if I were Karl Rove, I would target Bush’s post-convention ads to different regions with different themes. Bush’s best bets at winning Ohio and West Virginia is avoiding talking about tax cuts and keeping the spotlight on wedge issues and the terrorist bogeyman. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, Bush would improve his chances by appealing to the gluttony of the privileged, arguing that Kerry will “raise your taxes and give them to the shiftless, lowlife, underachieving trash in places like….Ohio and West Virginia”. While Bush would be unlikely to lose the support of low-income one-issue rural voters in places like Todd County in Minnesota no matter how much he disparages them, Bush would most likely gain plenty of swing votes from the avaricious suburbs where more war opponents exist than do in places like Huntington, WV. That’s Bush’s conundrum. If he runs on “We will kill Arabs! We will kill Arabs!”, he loses Minnesota but wins Ohio. If he runs on “no tax hikes to finance the lowlife parasites”, he loses West Virginia but wins Minnesota. Nonetheless, I think his best starting point on the national stage is to focus on continued fear-mongering and avoiding the specifics of his domestic policy which are highly unpopular among those who earn less than $100,000 per year.
Mark: your own extreme rhetoric undermines the credibility of any argument you make. You do seem to be trying to make a thoughtful point, but when you say things like “waging war against public schools” (when funding for elementary and secondary education is up 49% since 2001) and “rethreatening the privatization of Social Security” (when surveys show that for a population where the middle class is becoming the investory class that is a popular idea) that makes everything you say afterwards seem tainted. Now one can have a reasoned debate on those issues, but again your rhetoric is so out of the mainstream that it puts your whole thesis in doubt.
Well, good thing he’s talking about building a stronger economy, making education more accountable and efficient, and giving workers a chance to ensure that their Social Security money doesn’t go down the toilet.
AT is right, your own overheated sophisty shows that you’re not remotely being objective in your comments. Bush’s plans for the economy are the right plans, while Kerry rejects even the moderate economic policies of Bill Clinton – Kerry’s economic plans would return this country to a period of economic isolation not seen since the Great Depression – something that would ensure that the economy would tank.
I’ll try to state it benignly enough to help you kitties put your backs down. The Republican Party’s domestic platform will only be supported by about a third of the country. Dubya needs more than a third of the country to vote for him if he plans to win. He’s better off playing the “stay the course with the same general” card to peel off enough of the centrist third of the electorate than he is by drawing attention to his three deficit-fueled tax cuts and his 2000 plans to privatize Social Security, which could make “9-11 Democrats” think twice about supporting him.
The Republican Party’s domestic platform is the platform that will expand the economy, create new opportunities, and let people have the ability to make choices for themselves. It stands in direct contrast to the class-warfare rhetoric and neo-feudalism of the Democrats, which consists of higher taxes, dramatically increased government spending, and punitive and dangerous tariffs that are straight out of the protectionism of the 1920s.
The Republican platform is a winning platform, and Bush should be clear and decisive in presenting it to the American people.
Just because the Republican Party platform appeals to you doesn’t mean it appeals to the majority of Americans. Thus far, the party has skillfully weaved together a coalition of low-income social conservatives and high-income economic conservatives that in the past few election cycles have produced just enough votes to piecemeal a plurality of the electorate and help the GOP control government. Unfortunately for Bush, the stone-cold failures created by governing from the far-right both socially and economically has shifted the allegiance of some Republicans and many GOP-leaning independents. That’s why Bush is in trouble even though there’s an alarming number of 9-11 Democrats blinded from reason by their paranoia of the bogeyman. With his support eroding, Bush needs these 9-11 Democrats come election day…and the best way for him to hang on to them is to avoid calling attention to domestic policy specifics that are at odds with nearly all of the 9-11 Democrats and many independents.
When you get down to it, very few Americans would ascribe to the language of the Republican Party platform. Yourself and other rock-solid partisans who accept both the social and economic policies of the Republican Party make up maybe 20% of the electorate. The GOP’s biggest strategic mistake is likely to be convincing themselves of the premise that when Peter Jennings colors a state red on the election map, it’s a mandate for the entire Republican platform. You guys seem to think that when a $6 an hour Wal-Mart employee votes for Bush because of abortion, she also wants to see Medicaid slashed to help pay for three tax cuts all directed towards people other than herself. You guys seem to think that when a West Virginia coal miner votes for Bush because he fears the Democrats will take away his shotgun and enact environmental policies that will harm his job, that he also wants to see workplace safety standards reduced and overtime pay eradicated. Such hubris could very well be the undoing of the Republican Party…and the fact that you are out-of-touch enough to suggest that Bush call attention to his domestic agenda in an attempt to WIN votes is a heartening indication that your party is at the swirl before the drain for a generation.
To which the correct response is: whatever.
You have a straw man view of conservatism. You imbue whatever particular bugaboos you choose to believe in at the moment and ascribe those to “conservatism” with ill regard to what conservatives actually believe.
In short, you live on Planet Liberal, and you view the world with liberal-eyed glasses.
A modicum of research would show that education spending has increased, many more people are now eligable for overtime pay than before, personal income has finally begun to rise, and the Bush tax cuts have done exactly what they were intended to do: stimulate the economy and get businesses growing again.
which consists of higher taxes, dramatically increased government spending, and punitive and dangerous tariffs that are straight out of the protectionism of the 1920s.
Isn’t that what we’ve been getting from the Bush administration, though?
many more people are now eligable for overtime pay than before
Really? Because I did a modicum of research, and this is what I got:
Revised changes to overtime rules proposed by the Bush administration will still fail to protect overtime pay for 6 million workers, according to a new study.
Of course, that’s from that notorious anti-capitalist rag, CNN Money. (oh, wait.)
Which was an analysis by the liberal (and union-funded) Economic Policy Institute. The changes to the FLSA gave increased overtime protection to 1.2 million workers. Under the old rules someone making less than minimum wage ($8,000/yr) could be exempted for overtime. The new changes ensure that ceiling is raised to $23,660/yr – a much more reasonable figure.
Mark, it is amazing how many stereotypes of conservatives you have and employ in your reasoning. It is quite laughable.
And talk about trying to play on voter’s fears: it is the Dems who go around trying to scare voters about losing Medicare, losing education, etc…that has been one of their longstanding tactics.
Actually, CNN is not exactly a conservative source…
You’re right; they’re far too honest.
Actually, CNN is not exactly a conservative source…and the study cited is by EPI, which is a liberal organization…
The study was confirmed by third parties. You’re welcome to point out specific flaws in the study; until then you’re simply committing a Genetic Fallacy.
The changes to the FLSA gave increased overtime protection to 1.2 million workers.
Which doesn’t make up for the 6 million who lose it.
What is it, you guys can’t do arithemtic?
Every account I’ve read about the new overtime regulations has been different. Some suggest an income threshold of slightly more than $23,000 crossing into “professional” status and exempting these workers from overtime. Other accounts I’ve read suggest a salary in the $60,000+ category. Here, the threshold is said to be $100,000. It appears that nobody really understands the specifics of this bill….except perhaps the Department of Labor, who is attempting to educate Bush’s robber baron constituency by listing a variety of ways employers can get around the new overtime regs on the Dep’t of Labor website. After the bad headlines this understandably generated, perhaps the website has removed the “ways to dodge overtime laws” love list from its website, but it was on there in 2003 after George Bush declared it law even after it failed in Congress. (why is it again that he can do this?)
I’m reluctant to make any bold predictions over who will gain and who will lose overtime when the new provisions take hold since no two accounts of the laws say the same thing. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, however, to see where this law is likely to lead. If employers are only required to pay overtime benefits to those making less than $23,000 per year, it will slowly be phased out in a “health insurance or overtime–take your pick” scenario. If employers acted too quickly and instantly stole overtime benefits from every employee who isn’t required to earn it by law, the political consequences would be drastic. What I forecast is a NAFTA-esque scenario where the theft takes place in slow motion, with a few companies in tough times demanding overtime concessions from workers and inspiring their competitors to do the same to stay ahead of the curve. Hopefully, I’m wrong….but business groups aren’t supporting this plan because they enjoy paying overtime benefits to more workers.
Lastly, I don’t understand this premise of raising the mandatory minimum salary where overtime applies from $8K per year to $23K per year. Does this mean that hourly workers making $18,000 a year but work 60 hours a week are currently exempt from overtime laws that apply to those who work a 40-hour workweek but earn more than $23K? What on Earth does this mean?
I notice nobody has an answer to my questions about the new overtime laws and its slippery language…..as expected.