posted on December 14, 2000 03:17:26 PM
I surely doubt that anybody could be more of an embarrassment to the country than Clinton was. His constant scandals and sexcapades were ridiculous. As for drugs, it seems that Clinton liked them, too. No wait, I forgot, he didn't inhale! (Just like he "never had sex with that woman". Yeah, right.
[ edited by LadyGambler on Dec 14, 2000 03:18 PM ]
posted on December 14, 2000 03:40:05 PM
Stusi - Just want to add my comment to yours. You said, "it is also my understanding that Gore wrote his own concession speech."
I think we've had conflicting reports on that. I too, heard two reports say he did, but when I was watching Fox News yesterday they showed a live picture (and said the name) of who was in an arriving car to Gores home. It was some highly respected speech writer. So.....
posted on December 14, 2000 03:54:18 PM
I thought both speeches sucked. They were lackluster and topheavy with generalities -- in other words, they said a whole lot of nothing. Gore tried to fill in the empty spaces by invoking God a lot when instead he should have said something about the very real and dire need of election reform in this country. Bush, meanwhile, did nothing to dispel his image as an air-filled puppet of Republican heavies like Tom DeLay and the rest of the Congressional goon squad.
The speeches were specifically crafted to say nothing while tricking people into believiing that the respective speakers were "upstanding" and "statesmanlike." They were designed to appeal to those who demand nothing more than sound bytes from their candidates -- the "now that the votes have been counted, it's time for the votes to count" crowd.
In that respect, at least judging by the responses in this thread, they did what they were supposed to.
posted on December 14, 2000 03:56:17 PM
Oh, and say what you will about Clinton, but he was ten times the President either Bush or Gore will ever be. I'd sign him up for another 8 years without a second thought.
posted on December 14, 2000 03:56:48 PM
sometimes a speechwriter will act as an editor just checking for grammar etc. regardless, it was a great speech and i have to say that regardless who wrote Bush's speech it wasn't too shabby either. spaz- i would agree with you if it was not for the circumstances of the past month. these speeches were intended to make peace, but i have a feeling that the peace will not last too long and we will soon be hearing those things that you felt were lacking last night.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 14, 2000 04:00 PM ]
posted on December 14, 2000 03:57:19 PM
Sadly, few high-profile political figures write their own speeches. This is all handled by the PR guys who hire professional speech writers. Nor do they deliver their speeches without the use of teleprompters. One poster stated that if you are not comfortable and do not enjoy giving speeches, why be in office? Well, hopefully one seeks this particular office for a myriad of other reasons.
posted on December 14, 2000 04:09:52 PM
Not the least of which is fame and power. Doesn't matter that ya don't know how to handle that power, just let all your lackeys make all the decisions and all will be well.
posted on December 14, 2000 04:14:49 PM
ladyg- i regretfully have to agree with you regarding the embarrassment Clinton caused the U.S. however, although speech making ability is a plus and a good speech can rouse the country, it should not be as much of a criteria to judge a person's worth as it is. the perceived problem with GW goes beyond speech making ability. he is thought to be less than a very intelligent man and that is a scary prospect for a President or other governmental leader.
posted on December 14, 2000 04:26:48 PM
Handwritten; the second half finished on his lap while he was on the way to speak:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in
a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so
conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great
battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their
lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and
proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot
dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated
it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never
forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be
dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here
have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these
honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this
nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people shall
not perish from the earth.
posted on December 14, 2000 04:31:01 PM
With no teleprompter or speechwriter:
No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character
very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.
Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she
transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not,the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.
I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir.These are the implements of war and subjugation;the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to
oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those estimable
privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!
They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
posted on December 14, 2000 08:48:04 PM
kenny- you always seem to have relevant quotes at your fingertips. two of the most famous speeches ever written by exceptional orators. IMHO Mario Cuomo, although perhaps not in the same class as Lincoln or Henry, is the only modern day speaker who can deliver a memorable off-the-cuff speech.
posted on December 14, 2000 08:57:01 PM
Aw, geez, it's no sin to use a teleprompter, or notes, or the whole damn speech. I'd rather the President or even President-elect spend his time doing something more improtant than trying to memorize a speech. Surely there are other things that need attending.
As for Gore's speech, HE wrote it, but let a speechwriter polish it for him. I thought it was mostly good, but a little disjointed. The disjointedness kept me off-guard and that was a bit disconcerting. Parts of it here and there were brilliant. HE seemed relaxed and at ease, which was nice -- comforting, actually, and that's probably what I appreciated most about it. I also applaud him for mildly dissing the Supremes. A little honesty here and there about such things is refreshing.
Bush -- fogeddaboudit. He had a lot to say (time-wise, anyway), but he sure didn't say anything much, and certainly there was nothing in it for ME. Gracious enough sounding, I suppose. But all I heard were words. Sentence after sentence strung together of mere words. I had the feeling I'd heard the same thing over and over again. Did ANYone come away with any single idea other than "we have to work together and I've done that in TX"?
That alone makes me laugh. Austin isn't Washington, by any means. And besides, those Democrats are conservative Democratss, not the same animal as REAL Democrats at all.
posted on December 15, 2000 07:22:53 AMClinton is leaving his presidency as of today's polls with a 66% per cent approval rating. Higher than GW's and even higher than Ronald Reagan's. Another interesting poll yeterday showed if the vote were taken all over today, Gore is leading Bush by 55% to 45% of the people. No wonder Bush has said he is not gonna read the pollsters.
posted on December 15, 2000 07:44:53 AM
Personally I thought it a really neat idea with the bandanas on the mantle, but then I like southwestern decor.
Mrs. Bushs dress. It wasn't that bad... dunno, not into dresses I guess
posted on December 15, 2000 08:29:18 AM
Yeah, that's the ticket, Gore should open a speech writing business. I'm sure there's a bull market out there for good concession speechs.
posted on December 15, 2000 04:36:54 PM
Nice try Helen, but your edit speaks, and your original with this train makes lie of this new claim.
NeartheSea posted on December 15, 2000 07:44:53 AM
Personally I thought it a really neat idea with the bandanas on the mantle, but then I like southwestern decor. Mrs. Bushs dress. It wasn't that bad... dunno, not into dresses I guess
posted on December 15, 2000 05:42:57 PM
It may help to read the editorial which is
favorable to Gore. My comments were based on
this editorial, which pointed out that
the concession speech was the equivalent of taking a bullet for the country.
. Yeah, right.
A little honesty here and there about such things is refreshing.