Republicans fear Obama’s eloquence? Excuse me?
Sometimes I wonder where Peggy Noonan has been for the past few years.
Back when she was Reagan’s speechwriter, she seemed to have her finger on the pulse of something. But “out-of-touch” is too mild a term to describe this:
An odd fact: Republicans more than others, amazingly, have internalized and hold to the idea that this president has some secret magical powers he’s just waiting to unleash. Those powers normally go by the name “eloquence.” But the eloquence was always exaggerated, and to the extent it existed, there’s no sign it’s about to kick in.
I don’t know which Republicans Noonan hangs out with (David Brooks, admirer of the perfectly creased pant? Christopher Buckley?). Actually, I don’t ordinarily hang out with a whole lot of Republicans myself—except on this blog and other spots in the blogosphere. But I have yet to meet one or read of one or hear from one who meets Noonan’s description.
It is Democrats who have internalized that idea, and who aren’t fearing but rather hoping that Obama’s glorious rhetorical powers kick in, just in time to wow the electorate once again.
The only other explanation I can think of for Noonan’s bizarre statement is that she’s been keeping company with too many pundits, wordsmiths, and speechwriters—Democrats and Republicans—who overestimated both Obama’s eloquence (never really in evidence) and the power of eloquence itself without action to go with it. Perhaps she even overestimates her own power, lo these many long years.
Reagan was a good speech-maker, and Noonan assisted him in writing some bang-up speeches. But if that had been all he did, he would have lost his bid for re-election to a second term. Talk—even talk that’s truly eloquent—only goes so far.
Like Maureen Dowd, Peggy Noonan gets it – and then doesn’t. Like split personalities, clinging to their vision of what Obama must have been. That beautiful mirror reflecting back to them all their hopes and dreams. The feet of clay. The bitter realization that he isn’t and never was plastered over every time with the tattered remnants of their imaginary Obama.
Dowd usually starts her column with the plaster, but as she writes, she warms up and the truth, which she DOES now see, surfaces.
Noonan is the opposite, calls it right down the line, and then pulls back in horror at what she sees behind the curtain, and tries to reassure herself it’s not that bad.
It’s the oddest thing. These bright, strong, powerful women, lost, and trying to extricate themselves from the quicksand, but only halfheartedly.
Listen. Ladies. He isn’t. He never was. It was plain as day, if you had only looked behind the facade. You, for whom words are a living, should have felt the hair rise on the back of your neck. Understanding the dishonest use of words to paint a false picture – should be the prerequisite to Journalism 101.
The only other explanation I can think of for Noonan’s bizarre statement is she’s lost her mind and would now be subject to a VAT… if we had one.
Peggy Noonan:
Neo, both you and Peggy Noonan agree that by now the POTUS – excuse me, TOTUS- is as “eloquent” as a block of bricks.
What Peggy Noonan is guilty of is misdiagnosis. She is correct that many Pubs fear that the POTUS is waiting to spring something on us. However, very few Pubs fear that the POTUS is “just waiting to unleash” an attack of “eloquence” on us. Four years of the POTUS have shown us that his “eloquence” is by now nothing more than a tired recycling of some worn out talking points. Yadi, yadi, yada. Blah, blah, blah. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to easily refute them.
What many Pubs fear is some sort of October surprise, such as the ginned up National Guard documents that Dan Rather tried to foist on the public in 2004. Also from 2004, consider the unsealing of controversial divorce records on Obama opponents in the campaign for the Senate seat in Illinois. In at least one case of the unsealing of documents, the Obama campaign played a prominent behind the scenes role.
My take on an “October surprise” is that it will not involve anything to to do with Romney. The Obama campaign has already shot those arrows out of its quiver, and has been repeatedly dogged by their ineffectiveness and how quickly the Romney campaign has rendered them ineffective.
I suspect some sort of ginned up international incident, where the talking point will be “don’t change horses in midstream.” Rally behind the chief, that sort.
Recall a WSJ column by Peggy Noonan titled the Ben Elliott Story. Bentley Elliott was head speech-writer for Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1986. He is written about far down the column. Worth reading. Few people knew about him. The first part of the column is about Reagan’s funeral. Interesting observations plus good quotes from Margaret Thatcher. It all serves as vivid contrast with the current administration.
In 1980, Eugene McCarthy endorsed Ronald Reagan, when pressed for the his reason, he said, “[b]ecause he doesn’t confuse the presidency with himself.” While it regarded Carter, the comment applies with even greater force to the current White House occupant.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122460039897754255.html
I stopped reading newspapers after I realized that the “pundits” have far less information than the people who comment on neoneocon, Ace of Spades, Belmont Club, and other non-liberal blogs.
These blogs link to various newspapers, so I actually do get the MSM indirectly (see Mark Steyn’s column on our fake President, for example). But anyone who is going to get their news from MSM pundits is going to be sadly uninformed. The MSM pundits have very little contact with people outside their bubble.
I personally have very few contacts outside my bubble, but the world is now my oyster with the advent of the internet. Today I had lunch with a well-meaning friend who burbled various MSM talking points and whose husband is “advanced” and reads Huffington Post. I tried to get her to look at Instapundit (this is a good “starter” blog for people in the MSM bubble.
Maybe Peggy Noonan should be encouraged to read Instapundit.
Obama isn’t eloquent. But he has a sonorous baritone, as did Reagan. That has so far been enough to flimflam a lot of people who have the will to believe in his powers. Reagan, of course, had powers beyond his voice timbre. Lacking a mellifluous voice is something you can overcome and be president, but it’s a handicap. If you can dig up a recording of LBJ or Hubert Humphrey, you can see what a burden it is to have kryptonite in your voice box.
Noonan fell for that eloquence in 2008, big time. Ditto for Anne Althouse.
Mr Frank is spot on. I have a hard time glancing at Althouse or Noonan columns anymore since that happened.
* Gringo –
That assessment seems right to me. The best thing about having Romney as our nominee is that there is essentially no doubt that he is clean as whistle. All they have is Gordon Gekko stuff (and dogs, I guess), but that is starting to look like a complete loser as a caricature. I’m honestly shocked (in a good way) at how badly it’s playing.
Obama will be in a very tough spot without an October surprise. We know that when the campaign heats up, he will begin Mediscare. That’s a given, and I’m sure Romney’s people have already war-gamed it. There are no dark secrets in Romney’s past. What else is there? Romney’s a scary white man?
Still, ginning up some crisis elsewhere so as to be able to say “stay the course” is pretty risky, though I have no doubt that if Obama thought it could save his skin, he’d do it in a heartbeat, no matter how much damage it caused. I draw a blank, however, on what crisis he could provoke. Maybe I just lack the diabolical imagination of our betters on Pennsylvania Ave.
* Mr Frank & Baklava –
And I would add that there is a difference between voting for Obama out of resignation, as, say, Christopher Hitchens and Walter Russell Mead did, and actually believing Obama’s bullsh*t. I can understand Mead’s justification for his vote, even if I’m not persuaded by it. He’s clear that he never thought much of Obama or his promises. For him, it was a lesser-of-two-evils kind of deal, as he had judged that Republicans had become irresponsible with power and the Democrats had forgotten how to govern responsibly. A little shifteroo would teach both parties some humility and responsibility, and ultimately be better for the republic. Or so he thought. Anyway, it had nothing to do with hearting Obama.
But the head-over-heels routine of Noonan, Brooks and Buckley was simply disgusting (I didn’t read Althouse at the time, so I can’t comment on her). Witnessing the lack of sobriety displayed by people who take SO MUCH pride in being sober, temperate paragons of rhetorical virtue was something like seeing decked out middle-aged aristocrats leaping up-and-down and screaming with teary-eyed ecstasy at a Justin Bieber concert. Completely surreal.
Someone should have sat them down and showed them one of those anti-drug PSAs from the ’80’s, the egg frying in the pan, and dubbed it over:
“This is your brain on [Obama].”
Not sure they would have got the message, though. These people have skulls of teflon.
Kolnai, did you see the clip of Brian Williams (NBC) actually BOWING to Obozo after the White House interview? I nearly lost my lunch.
David Bowie wrote the perfect song for it all, back in the 70s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=555jxltr9Zo
Beverly –
I did see that – frankly, it was simultaneously one of the most sickening and hilarious things I’ve ever seen.
I mean, Brian Williams is such a… such a… what do the kids say today? – right, such a TOOL.
He has that smarmy and self-important thing down pat, which isn’t unique among MSM anchors, but there’s also this strange inner softness that seeps through the cracks. Basically, he’s a big time beta.
When he bowed to the LightBringer it was so cringe-inducingly awkward, one could see the wheels spinning in his mind:
“So cool! So cool! What do I do what do I do what do I doooooo? Shake… no… hug… no, too gay… um, BOW!”
And he listened to the Brian Williams in his head, and indeed he bowed.
The rest, as they say, is history.
kolnai says
“Witnessing the lack of sobriety displayed by people who take SO MUCH pride in being sober, temperate paragons….”
Exactly. They take SO MUCH pride in being the sober and chosen and superior beings. And we watched them … announce to the world that they were kings without clothes, that they were 90% pretense and 10% condescension. They announced, with a great and pretentious fanfare of huffing and puffing, their own foolishness.
I could not pull my eyes away, as if passing a car wreck.
He does seem to be able to pass drivel off as a good speech when people watch the video of it. I usually read accounts and in that format what his speeches are is obvious.
It is basically an inversion of Bush. Who; if you read a speech only… it looked good but if you watched it… well… not so much.
Thomas – the real measure of a man’s oratory skills lies in his ability to make a clear, concise, and convincing statement off the cuff. Most pols can bone up their teleprompter skills, with “emoticons” attached for style tips.
Neo and the rest – I believe Peggy Noonan’s work for Reagan was heavily influenced by his own writings as well as his easy, heartfelt delivery. As she became more and more of a TV pundit, she adopted an unattractive way of appearing too cute by half, flipping her blond hair around and attending all the right soirees. Thus, she lost her “finger on the pulse” as you called it.
“”It is basically an inversion of Bush. Who; if you read a speech only… it looked good but if you watched it… well… not so much.””
Thomass
All of progressivism is an inversion of conservativism. Which explains how they’re exactly 180 degrees wrong on nearly every single issue.
“…this president has some secret magical powers he’s just waiting to unleash…”
Peggy’s spent too much time in the MSNBC greenroom.
Most Republicans & conservatives are anticipating that Obama, in coordination with the MSM, will unleash an outrageous, below-the-belt hit on Romney. A case of “hitting back twice as hard”, not eloquence.
In addition to historical October surprises like ‘Rathergate’ and McCain’s imaginary affair with a lobbyist, we’ve witnessed the recent MSM feeding frenzy over non-stories like a painted rock on the leased Perry family hunting land and weirdly vague sexual harassment charges against Herman Cain.
>>>> But if that had been all he did, he would have lost his bid for re-election to a second term. Talk–even talk that’s truly eloquent–only goes so far.
Well, if you mean he’d sat there like a bump on a log giving speeches… yeah.
But he did pick good people to handle the economy, within certain limits. Vastly more effective than those of his predecessor, The Almighty JC…
:^D
Isn t everyone just getting a bit exasperated listening to all the “ahhs, long pauses, etc” in all the speeches he gives !!! Drives me crazy !
As someone has pointed out he has that lovely baritone timbre.
Seems I heard Michael Savage comment admiringly about his voice, says he should have been a singer ! Sadly for us……..
For once I am going to disagree with the people here and go with Noonan. Obama is a charismatic speaker when he is prepared and he is a genius at campaigning, although clearly a knave and fool at everything else. But people, or at least many people, want to accept that which is beautiful is good. These will avoid looking at the effects of his message and fixate only on it’s eloquent delivery. These are not the people who care about constitutions or an American political religion, only about toys and TV. Adults can see thru Obama, but they are far from a commanding majority in contemporary America.
BTW we should brace for the worse. Obama will almost certainly lose the popular vote, but I see him carrying Florida and Virginia and with it the election. We will have this consolation if he does win, G-d forbid, by 2016 most of his supporters will have learned their mistake painfully.
Bob from Virginia: I don’t think most people here are saying that Obama’s supporters didn’t think he was eloquent back in 2008 and for quite some time after. The disagreement with Noonan is that Republicans are not fearing (as she says they are) an outbreak of new “eloquence” from Obama. Most Republicans not only don’t think he’s eloquent (and never was), they also think Obama’s supporters have stepped back to some extent from thinking he’s eloquent, or from caring about his perceived eloquence. “Eloquence” is not the October surprise Republicans fear, if they fear an October surprise at all.
It was not Obama’s “eloquence” which won him the office. It was principally promises to fulfill dreams of instant gratification (i.e. material, physical, ego).
Even the most eloquent orators can wear thin. Obama’s stock in trade is speaking, and speaking, and speaking, ad nauseam. No one can talk that much without recycling their ideas. Even Churchill, Reagan, or FDR had to avoid being over exposed. If your ideas are not resonating, it is time to take stock and find out why. That, of course, is what Obama cannot do because he’s always been able to talk his way to the next step on the ladder. Unfortunately for him, he’s now on the top rung of the ladder. Results are the only thing that can keep him up there. I say, let him talk. Everyday in everyway he becomes more of a bore.
Peggy was traumatized by witnessing September 11th and has not been the same since.