The speechwriters’-eye view

Hugh Hewitt linked today to a blog that was started just this month by former White House speechwriters—specifically, the White House Writers Group, founded by former Reagan/Bush speechwriters, and the West Wing Writers, a group of former Clinton speechwriters—called Podium Pundits; their stated purpose is “to analyze and comment on major speeches, messaging strategy, and the business of communications.”  This looks like it’s going to be a fascinating blog, and I’ve added it to the blogroll.  Bonus points for posting the pictures of the year so far:

The future of newspapers

I think most folks who follow the news are aware that newspapers are in trouble, as stories multiply about the financial problems at papers like the Chicago Tribune, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and of course the Grey Lady, the New York Times.  Yesterday, Geoff Baker, who covers the Seattle Mariners as the beat writer for the Seattle Times, reflected on this situation on his blog.  I think he has some worthwhile things to say; I believe he’s right that online content offers newspapers the opportunity to do far more than they can with their print editions. I particularly appreciate (and agree with) his comment that “the first step is for all reporters who still have jobs to start practising journalism to a far greater degree than they do.”  He’s more optimistic than I am about finding a financial model that will work to keep our newspapers afloat, but in the end, I think he’s right that “this Darwinian exercise” will lead not to the extinction of newspapers but to their reinvigoration; we rely too much on the work they do for them to disappear.

The Washington Post and the liberal double standard

My heartfelt thanks to Paul Hinderaker for posting this classic letter to the editor from the Washington Post, from a chap named Martin Carr:

I’ve got to stop reading the Post. The Dec. 17 front-page fluff piece on Caroline Kennedy [Friends Say Kennedy Has Long Wanted Public Role] was nauseating. You devoted more than 1,200 words to the subject but none that addressed why she is qualified to take on the role of a U.S. Senator. Her maiden name—and I loved the part about how she has now abandoned her married name—is her only “qualification,” and a dubious one at that.What really irritated me was the paragraph about how her cousin thinks she’d be great because she’s a mom and the Senate needs more such real people. Hmmm. . . . Seems to me we just had the “realest” person I can ever remember running for vice president—a mother of five who got involved in politics because she didn’t like the way things were happening in her home town—and she was excoriated by The Post and other media outlets for being inexperienced and uninformed.Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications are nil, and I’m ashamed that The Post is pretending that she has some. Have you lost all sense of editorial balance and real journalism?

I have continued to be amazed at the way in which utterly unfounded and ridiculous slurs against Sarah Palin have been disseminated and believed for no other reason than that people dislike her party affiliation. Here, the Post has given us the flip side of that. And the MSM wonders why they have no credibility . . .

TV is for losers?

No, not exactly; but a new study reported in the New York Times has found something interesting:

Happy people spend a lot of time socializing, going to church and reading newspapers—but they don’t spend a lot of time watching television, a new study finds.That’s what unhappy people do.Although people who describe themselves as happy enjoy watching television, it turns out to be the single activity they engage in less often than unhappy people, said John Robinson, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland and the author of the study, which appeared in the journal Social Indicators Research.

Very interesting. This is not, I’m sure, to say that watching TV makes you unhappy (though the news these days could have that effect); but the other activities referenced (in the article, anyway) are either communal, or require effort, or both. TV is neither—it’s a passive activity which can be isolating (though it need not be); it’s an easy pleasure, and easy pleasures get us nowhere that matters.HT: Ray Ortlund

Cokie Roberts on Sarah Palin’s future

Those who are hoping that Gov. Palin will quietly disappear into one of history’s footnotes—a group which includes Republican supporters of other 2012 contenders as well as many Democrats—would do well to listen to what Cokie Roberts has to say on the subject, because there’s a reason she’s one of the top political reporters in the country. As the daughter of two successful politicians and an experienced and gifted correspondent, she knows her field better than most. Her conviction that “there’s more of Sarah Palin in our future” is grounded in part in her observation that “the camera loves” Gov. Palin, which is certainly true and important; of more significance, though, is her comment that Gov. Palin feels “she was vastly disserved by the McCain campaign and I agree with her.” What Ms. Roberts realizes and many others do not is that many of Gov. Palin’s negatives are the result of her mishandling by the McCain campaign, not her own personality, inclinations, and gifts, and thus won’t be coming along with her. To expect those negatives to endure and drag her career down when she won’t be reinforcing them is simply unreasonable. Two years is a long time in American politics, and four years is pretty near a lifetime; Gov. Palin will have plenty of opportunities over the next few years to dispell the negative perceptions of her among independent voters, and all she’ll need to do to accomplish that is to be herself.(Note: the original article from the Boston Herald has been archived and is only available for purchase.)

On alcoholism and not laughing at the vulnerable

This monologue by Craig Ferguson has of course been around for quite a while, since he delivered it in February of last year; but I keep going back to it, and finding people who need to hear it and haven’t, so I decided to post it. (I’m aware of the irony in doing so, given that the video I posted yesterday is after all a beer ad; but though that ad was used to sell beer, it wasn’t about the beer, and I posted it for other reasons.) I will note that there is a little profanity in this monologue; but there’s also a great deal of wisdom in it.

Along with that, here’s an interview he did with Eye to Eye about his decision not to go after Britney Spears:

Camille Paglia on Sarah Palin

Even though I don’t agree with Camille Paglia on very much (if anything) politically, I admire her greatly for her honesty, the clarity of her perception, and the true independence of her mind, and also for her great gifts as a writer. Her latest column in Salon shows her at the top of her form, particularly in this telling observation about Barack Obama:

As I’ve watched Obama gracefully step up to podiums or move through crowds, I’ve been reminded not of basketball, with its feints and pivots, but of surfing, that art form of his native Hawaii. . . Obama’s ability to stay on his feet and outrun the most menacing waves that threaten to engulf him seems to embody the breezy, sunny spirit of the American surfer.

It also shows her refusal to close her eyes for the sake of ideology, as she expresses concern over

the mainstream media’s avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama—even as every flimsy rumor about Sarah Palin was being trumpeted as if it were engraved in stone on Mount Sinai.

She mentions specifically the evasiveness of the Obama campaign, and the unanswered questions about his association with Bill Ayers and (especially, to her) Bernardine Dohrn, writing,

We don’t need another presidency that finds it all too easy to rely on evasion or stonewalling. I deeply admire Obama, but as a voter I don’t like feeling gamed or played.

Those two sentences, comparing the behavior of Sen. Obama and his campaign to that of the hated President Bush and his administration, have to have cost her. Paglia spends a fair chunk of her column on Ayers and Dohrn, whom she clearly finds disturbing; and from there she turns to Gov. Palin, writing,

Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don’t know their asses from their elbows.Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology—contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.I like Sarah Palin, and I’ve heartily enjoyed her arrival on the national stage. As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is—and quite frankly, I think the people who don’t see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn’t speak the King’s English—big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns—that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World.As for the Democrats who sneered and howled that Palin was unprepared to be a vice-presidential nominee—what navel-gazing hypocrisy! What protests were raised in the party or mainstream media when John Edwards, with vastly less political experience than Palin, got John Kerry’s nod for veep four years ago? And Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, for whom I lobbied to be Obama’s pick and who was on everyone’s short list for months, has a record indistinguishable from Palin’s. Whatever knowledge deficit Palin has about the federal bureaucracy or international affairs (outside the normal purview of governors) will hopefully be remedied during the next eight years of the Obama presidencies.The U.S. Senate as a career option? What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan—nothing but droning committees and incestuous back-scratching. No, Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is.

It’s a powerful smackdown to groupthink and cant from someone who’s as free of both as any columnist around (on either side of the political aisle); the fact that it’s also a powerful defense of someone who both needs and deserves it just makes it better.

All about Sarah?

I’m starting to wonder. There have been folks on the right who’ve been insisting since John McCain chose Sarah Palin that liberals are afraid of her and feel a particular need to destroy her; I’ve tended to think that was overstated. Certainly, I think a lot of folks on the left found her particularly galling—for daring to go “off the reservation” and be a successful woman in politics on non-leftist terms (with her strong pro-life position being the main part of that), and for Sen. McCain having had the nerve to pick a woman as his running mate when Barack Obama hadn’t—but I figured it was much more that she represented someone who could actually put the McCain campaign over the top, and therefore was a threat to be destroyed ASAP, by whatever means necessary.Now, though, I’m beginning to think that the voices insisting that liberals hate/fear her specifically may have more of a point than I thought. What has me considering this is a recent post on the media blog for Condé Nast Portfolio on whom the New York Times should hire to replace Bill Kristol if rumors prove true that they’re inclined not to keep him on their op-ed pages. The blogger in question, Jeff Bercovici, is clearly an unapologetic liberal, which is no surprise; what is a surprise is the theme that seems to underlie his suggested alternatives. Of the four names he puts forward, two are Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy—the folks who got caught dissing Gov. Palin on a mike they didn’t know was open. A third is Kathleen Parker, whom he makes a point of labeling as a Palin-hater. Why highlight that unless it’s part of the point, and to be adduced as evidence that she has “the independence of thought that Kristol so glaringly lacks”?Which in turn makes me think that that supposed “lack of independence” on Kristol’s part may be code for “he likes Sarah Palin”; which, if so, is ludicrous, since Kristol was booming Gov. Palin for the slot back when it required incredible independence of thought to even entertain the idea. Which makes me wonder if there isn’t a subtext for replacing Kristol: the Grey Lady is willing to have a conservative columnist or two around if it has to—but one who supports Sarah Palin is just too much. If they’re going to have a conservative columnist, it must at least be a properly elitist Palin-hating conservative.Do I take this as proven? Obviously not. But I’m wondering if there might be something to it . . . and if so, what its significance might be.