State of the Union 2011

Speech By: President Obama

Date: January 25, 2011

Location: House of Representatives

Occasion: State of the Union

Analysis:

It may be that he set the bar so high with his speech in Arizona, that any subsequent effort would be a mere shadow in its wake; or, maybe, it may be the nature of the speech itself, which is akin to a homeowners “to-do list” on a busy weekend – except this id for a nation of 300 million people, and for an entire year; and maybe, just maybe, it was the new seating arrangements, which not only blurred the partisan affiliation of the audience, but blunted their reaction to the speech, as well. Whatever the reason – the President’s State of the Union address was less than inspiring.

In fact, it would not be uncharitable to say it fell flat.

A State of the Union speech is assembled by a committee, the different agencies of government, the different interests among the public to whom the President wants to appeal, or to whom he owes a special thank you – and none of them are gathered in the same room to hear what the others have to say. It’s not a condition geared towards achieving excellence.

But last year’s speech was a solid effort.

This year’s speech was slightly shorter (about 300 words) than last year’s. But it seemed longer.

It may be that the new practice of having members of each party sit next to each other, diminished the enthusiasm, or the energy of the audience.

It may be, that sitting interspersed dilutes the effect of support for what the President is saying.

It occurs to me that the suggestion to mix up the seating came from one of the President’s own, now much reduced, party. Perhaps the idea was to distribute the President’s Democratic colleagues throughout the audience, and, in so doing, show more support throughout the House chamber than would otherwise have been exhibited. 

The problem seems to be that rather than distributing the President’s support more widely throughout the audience, it became diluted. If showing greater support was the intent, it was indeed a miscalculation.

As for the rhetoric of the speech itself, he appears to have abandoned the phrase “Let me be clear,” an expression which had become distressingly common in his earlier speeches. However, he still begins sentences with the word “And,” far too often. In this case, it was 49 times in 480 sentences. That’s more than 10 per cent of the time. The President, and his speech writers, can do better than that.

Finally, let’s talk about the catch-phrase of the speech “This is our Sputnik moment.” If you have doubts that this is the phrase the White House wanted to promote – go back and look at all the press coverage, just prior to, and just after the speech. Almost every outlet picked up on that phrase. 

Was that because it’s catchy, and has been on everyone’s lips in the days following the speech? No, it’s because the White House press office pushed it, thinking, or at least hoping, it would capture the public’s imagination.

Just one more miscalculation.

Length (words): 6945

Text Posted: The White House

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

A General Sacked

Speech By: President Obama
Title: Resignation of General McChrystal
Date: June 23, 2010
Location: Rose Garden
Occasion: Resignation of Gen. Stanley McChrystal

Analysis:
These remarks are not a case of how well something is said, but rather, the substance of what is said, and how decisively the words are delivered. By that measure, these remarks meet the standard admirably well.

Let’s start by not mincing words - General Stanley McChrystal was fired, he did not just resign. Let’s take it one step further - he should have been fired.

The Bully Pulpit has covered the controversy between Gen. McChrystal and the President, beginning with the General’s speech last Fall in which he indicated 40,000 more troops were needed in Afghanistan. It came close to crossing the line of insubordination, but was not overtly political. Still, the speech did serve to put unwelcome political pressure on the General’s ultimate boss - the Commander in Chief.

In response, the Commander in Chief went directly to West Point - to speak in front of those who would have to carry out whatever decision he announced - to deliver his reply.

It is the highest tradition of the American military, that its members ultimately take their orders from civilians. That they do this without public challenge, has given us a nation worthy of the lives they are willing to expend in its defense.

The most notable exception to this honored tradition was General MacArthur’s public challenge of President Truman during the Korean War. While it cost him political standing, Truman’s response, to fire MacArthur, ultimately strengthened the nation, and the Presidency itself.

While General McChrystal’s staff antics - speaking with open contempt of elected civilian officials in the presence of a reporter for Rolling Stone - may not quite rise to the same level as MacArthur, they are egregious enough. Given the previous history, there really seemed no choice. The President’s swift, decisive action in this case, is in the high tradition of President Truman, and America itself.

Length (words): 1176
Text Posted: White House Web Site


From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Lobbyists

When asked by a reporter - “Would you be against lobbyists who are working for your program?,” President Harry Truman replied, “We probably wouldn’t call those people lobbyists. We would call them citizens working in the public interest.”

How a politician defines who is and who isn’t a lobbyist, is as likely to depend on where the lobbyist’s clients stand with regard to the politician’s own agenda, as any other factor.

So it should come as little surprise that President Obama devoted a significant portion of his Wall Street Reform speech to attacking lobbyists.

It’s a classic political strategy - don’t engage the opposition directly, find a convenient third party to attack. During the health care debate, his target was insurance companies.

Now, with a new battle joined, his speech resorts to military terms - “we have seen battalions of financial industry lobbyists descending on Capitol Hill, firms spending millions to influence the outcome of this debate.” Battalions! Indeed.

It’s an attempt to control the debate by controlling who takes part in the debate. So he demonizes lobbyists -  “despite the furious effort of industry lobbyists to shape this legislation to their special interests.” He frames the debate as being one between House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, versus the evil “special interests.”

Lobbyists are an easy target, because few people know what lobbyists actually do. More than that, few people realize lobbying - the right to petition for a redress of grievances- is the oldest right contained in the First Amendment. It dates back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

It is a right exercised on both sides of almost every issue. To match those who oppose new Wall Street regulations, there is another cadre who promotes them. What makes lobbying such an important right? It keeps the well-intentioned people in government, from doing things which have unintended consequences.

It’s what I call - A Right for a Reason.

So, will President Obama’s vitriol against lobbyists succeed? Perhaps we should look to history for the answer.

In the end - Harry Truman is remembered for many things. His attack on lobbyists is not one of them!

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

In The Shadows

Speech By:  President Barack Obama
Title: Wall Street Reform
Date: April 22, 2010
Location: Cooper Union
Text Posted: State of Politics Blog

Analysis:
Put simply - this was not one of the President’s more effective, or dynamic speeches. Given the pre-speech hype by the White House, and its importance to his legislative agenda - especially since the passage of health care failed to deliver a bounce in public opinion polls - one would have expected otherwise.

As the White House press pool report noted: “Apart from loud cheers and applause when the president walked in, the speech was heard in mostly silence apart from the flutter of camera shutters." This is more notable because a number of local politicians, most of them members of the President’s own party, were in the audience.

There really was not much memorable about this speech. No great catch phrases stand out. It was delivered without great passion, and received in like manner. It was as if the President had left his great oratorical skills, and truly, such they are, back in the Oval office.

In some sense, this speech was delivered amid long shadows. As he notes in the opening paragraph, Cooper Union is basically in the shadows of Wall Street. But other shadows are cast on the Great Hall at Cooper Union. Six future Presidents, and three incumbent Presidents have spoken from that stage. President Obama is the only one who falls into both categories. From that stage, an aspiring politician from Illinois gave the speech that would make him President - exactly a century and a half ago. Then, it was a lanky fellow who wore a stove-pipe hat.

Obama even refers to shadows as part of his speech: “these markets operated in the shadows of our economy,” and maintains his proposed reforms “would bring complex financial dealings out of the shadows;”.

Perhaps these shadows obscured the perspective of his speech writers. But this was not an outstanding effort to justify greater government involvement in an essential facet of the American economy.

Whether you support these reforms or oppose them; welcome greater government control over the finance industry, or abhor the very prospect; it is disappointing the President did not make a more forceful case for this key element in his legislative agenda.

One sentence in the next-to-last paragraph did garner my attention. “In the end, our system only works – our markets are only free – when there are basic safeguards that prevent abuse, that check excess, that ensure that it is more profitable to play by the rules than to game the system.” Yes it is a summation, but to my mind it should have been punched up, and inserted as the second paragraph. It could have been the pillar around which the rest of the speech was built. Instead, it meanders until it reaches this summing up paragraph, By that time, the potential power of the speech was lost.

He does spend three of his 30 paragraphs - ten percent - slamming lobbyists. That will be the topic of a separate Bully Pulpit post. Believe me.

Length (words): 2849

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

State of our Union

Speech By: President Obama
Title: State of the Union
Date: January 27, 2010
Location: House of Representatives
Occasion: Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: “He shall, from time to time, give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”
Length (words): 7237
Text Posted: White House Web site

Analysis:
A few years ago, a Republican Congressman speaking in prime time at his party’s national convention, made mention of George Washington as a signer of the Declaration of Independence. I was incensed! Only two signers went on to become President - John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and they both died the same day, July 4, 1826 - the 50th anniversary of Independence Day. George Washington had already taken command of the Continental army outside Boston by July 1776. A good political speech writer should know these things off the top of their head, and, if not, know where to look it up.

In my mind, the President made a similar gaffe last night, when he said:  “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal;” Sorry Mr. President - that notion was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. Equal protection of the laws was finally amended, not enshrined, into the Constitution - on the 14th change!

I think a President simply has to get this right. It detracts from the speech not at all to cite the Declaration rather than the Constitution. Especially when you refer to it in a speech long in preparation.

It was a speech not only long in preparation, but long in duration. At 7,237 words, it took the President an hour an ten minutes to deliver. It seemed at the end, as if the audience, more than half of whom are from the President’s own party, had simply run out of the energy needed to applaud. The chamber seemed unnaturally silent during that last ten minutes or so.

As mentioned in the last post, the President has become so ubiquitous a figure behind the teleprompter, it has begun to work to his disadvantage. Certain standard catch-phrases appear so often in his remarks, they have become the point of ridicule. One of these is “Let me be clear.” Well, somebody must have been listening in the White House, that phrase appeared not even once last night.

At the same time, certain other remarked on tendencies did appear. The President refers to himself remarkably frequently, and this speech was no exception. He used the word “I” 78 times, and combined with other references to the first person for a total of 110 times, or 1.5% of the entire speech. He did, on the other hand use the collective “us, we, our,” about 2.5% of the time, but then again, it is the state of the “union,” it rather should be that way.

It is tradition that the side of Congress which belongs to the President’s party stands to applaud at salient points during the speech. On this night, both Democrats and Republicans stood to applaud the President’s remarks. It’s just that each side did so at different times during the speech.

His speech came at a time when real problems, of which we are all too well aware, meant he could not issue forth the traditional phrase - “The state of our union is strong.”

He made a couple of bombshell announcements - withdrawal from Iraq by August, and the end of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for the military. As Commander-in-chief he can do those things. But he also called for some other surprising things - a renewed national commitment to nuclear power, and to offshore oil drilling. That got a lot of support from the Republican side of the aisle.

He also spent an awful lot of time explaining how his administration has been so much better than the last one, which got a lot of support from the Democrat side of the aisle.

There was little in the way of memorable turns of phrase. But give him credit, the President continues to be a powerful and effective speaker. A little less of it this night would have been welcome.

If  pressed to award a letter grade, I’d give it a solid B, maybe a B plus. Definitely better than the Union is doing right now.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Tonight, it matters

He has given, by the count I arrived at based on information posted on the White House Web site, 450 speeches since taking the oath of office. This does not include statements, press conferences, interviews or toasts.

My guess is, his remarks at the annual Easter egg roll probably weren’t extensive, considering the attention span of the intended audience. But many of those speeches were in depth policy talks.

It is said by any number of observers that President Obama’s first instinct when confronted by a problem is to give a speech. This is not intended as a compliment by said observers. This night however, before an audience crammed into the chamber of the House of Representatives, is different.

Tonight is President Obama’s first State of the Union speech, an occasion called for in Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution: “He shall, from time to time, give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”

This speech is seen by many as a moment in which the President will attempt to turn around the slide in political fortunes of his party, his policy agenda in Congress, and ultimately his administration. Some are even starting to talk about President Obama as a one-term President. These people, of course, know nothing about politics. Three years is about a dozen lifetimes away in politics. There will be many successes to buoy the President between now and the next Presidential election, and many failures to deflate his administration. Of more immediate concern are the Congressional elections which are now just over nine months away, and which may prove a disaster for his party unless there is some significant change in public perception. This speech will try to change that perception.

Political reporter Chris Cillizza of The Fix offers a handy “State of the union viewer’s guide.”

Along the same lines the Capitol newspaper The Hill gives this preview of the speech: “Obama changes message to revive agenda, help Dems in 2010 races.”

We of course, will be watching tonight from the vantage point of -

The Bully Pulpit - Tom

A Speech Writer’s Tale

This profile of White House speech writer Ben Rhodes in today’s Washington Post, fascinates me on so many levels.

First, it chronicles his path to becoming a speech writer, one I suspect is familiar to most other practitioners of the craft. It’s the kind of thing you sort of fall into, because other people discover you have a talent for it. Yes, there are courses of study you can pursue, as I have. Writing courses certainly help. But those mainly hone an innate talent.

Second, it’s a rather extended profile for someone who isn’t even the Chief White House speech writer.

Finally, I can’t help wonder if this isn’t a violation of one of the cardinal rules of those in the public relations field - and certainly speech writing falls beneath that penumbra - “don’t let yourself become the story.”

Some fascinating insights into the way this administration values President Obama’s speeches are revealed:
“Rhodes said all the speechwriters were aware of the critical role they shared in an administration that depends so much on Obama's speeches to move the agenda forward.”

This elicits a counter view:
“Not everyone thinks that's the best way to govern.
‘Obama's instinct to save himself with a big speech is not a good instinct,’ said David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush. ‘People get a sense of you and they stop hearing you. People do tune you out.’”

But what really stood out in my mind was this quote from Rhodes: “I drank the Kool-Aid hard after the '04 convention speech,” according to the Post.

“Drank the Kool Aid,” seems to me a rather loaded phrase, since it refers to the Reverend Jim Jones and the mass suicide at Jonestown. It’s a phrase which indicates a belief in something one shouldn’t, with disastrous results. If that’s what he really means, why is he working for this President?

That’s why letting yourself become part of the story is dangerous.

Still it’s a fascinating read for anyone interested in how speech writers work.

From the Bully Pulpit - Tom

A President Ascends The Bully Pulpit

Speech By: President Barack Obama
Title: REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT HEALTH CARE REFORM TOWN HALL
Date: July 23, 2009
Location: Shaker Heights High School, Shaker Heights, Ohio
Length (words): 3048
Video Posted: YouTube

Analysis:
There is no more classic use of the Bully Pulpit than a President trying to promote a controversial policy agenda. Thus we have the President’s health care speech in Shaker Heights Ohio, the day after his prime-time network news conference on the same topic.

Once again the President proves himself a master of the rhetorical arts. But rhetoric and policy are not the same thing.

He begins his speech by recognizing the Governor, the State Treasurer, Secretary of State, all members of his party, as well as the Mayor, and even the school superintendent. This is a time-honored tradition. A friendly mention by the President, especially less than a year after first taking up residence in the White House, can do wonders for the public approval rating of a local politician.

But in terms of speech craft, it serves a far larger purpose. Mentioning the home town political figures helps the President establish a shared identity with the audience. “I know the local folks just as well as you do,” it seems to say.

Establishing a shared identity, creating a common ground with the listener, is one of the most essential elements in effective speech writing. It is effectively done here.

Then it’s on to policy. But it begins with economic policy. “And when my administration came into office, we were facing the worst economy since the Great Depression.”
This is a bit of overreach, in terms of economic history. But no one will stand up and dispute this assertion.

It is also another classic technique. Because this is a relatively new administration, this is, by inference, an indictment of the previous one.

He takes credit for a two-year Recovery Act - then goes on to recite a litany of the administration’s other priorities - this includes transforming education from “cradle to college” - an interesting turn of phrase.

At that point, the speech transitions to health insurance and the larger question of health care.

A number of promises for the health care program are made - including coverage for pre-existing conditions, a marketplace where insurance companies will compete to cover you, nearly everyone is covered, and a promise is made that the federal deficit will not be increased to fund the program.
“I won't sign it if that reform adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade -- and I mean what I say.”
Considering some of the cost estimates for the proposed program, this statement has something of a “Read my lips- no new taxes,” feel about it.

Along those lines - he also attacks the other party for opposing the program he has proposed. “You know, the Republican -- the Republican Party chair, seeking to stall our efforts, recently went so far as to say that health insurance reform was happening “too soon.”” This is another tried and true political technique - first, blame your predecessor, which happened earlier in the speech, then blame the other party.

Part of the problem here is that as much of the opposition has come from members of his own party, as from the other party. The President originally demanded that Congress vote on his Health Care program by early August. By the time of this speech, the day after a nationally televised press conference on the topic, he had already adjusted his sights to “I want it done by the end of this year.”

Reading this speech, it’s hard not to ask the question: Might this speech, with its ringing generalities, promises that sound to good to be true, and broad overreach, be a metaphor for the fate of the program?

In the end it is the persuasive power of the words which issue from the Bully Pulpit that determine its success. Words alone may not be sufficient to overcome the force of opposition to the policy those words are designed to enact.

From the Bully Pulpit - Tom

Text:

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AT HEALTH CARE REFORM TOWN HALL

Shaker Heights High School
Shaker Heights, Ohio

THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank, please, everybody have a seat. Thank you. Hello! Hello, Shaker Heights! Hello, Ohio! It is great to be here. There are a couple of quick acknowledgments I want to make. First of all, please give Rick a big round of applause for his introduction.

Some special guests that we've got. First of all, the governor of the great state of Ohio, Ted Strickland, is in the house. There he is right there. Your State Treasurer Kevin Boyce is here. Your Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is here. The mayor of the great city of Cleveland, Frank Jackson, is here. Shaker Heights Mayor Earl Leiken is here. The Shaker Heights school superintendent Mark Freeman is here.

Not here, but a couple of my favorite people: Congresswoman Marcia Fudge and Sherrod Brown couldn't be here today. They've got work to do in Washington.

It is good to be back in the great state of Ohio. Now, I know there are those who like to report on the back-and-forth in Washington. But my only concern is the people who sent us to Washington -- the families feeling the pain of this recession; the folks I've met across this country who have lost jobs and savings and health insurance but haven't lost hope; the citizens who defied the cynics and the skeptics -- who went to the polls to demand real and lasting change. Change was the cause of my campaign; it is the cause of my presidency.

And when my administration came into office, we were facing the worst economy since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Hundreds of thousands of Ohioans have felt that pain firsthand. Our financial system was on the verge of collapse, meaning families and small businesses couldn't get the credit they need. And experts were warning that there was a serious chance that our economy could slip into a depression. But because of the action we took in those first weeks, we've been able to pull our economy back from the brink.

Now that the most immediate danger has passed, there are some who question those steps. So let me report to you exactly what we've done.

We passed a two-year Recovery Act that meant an immediate tax cut for 95 percent of Americans and small businesses -- 95 percent. It extended unemployment insurance and health coverage for those who lost their jobs in this recession. It provided emergency assistance to states like Ohio to prevent even deeper layoffs of police officers and firefighters and teachers and other essential personnel. At the same time, we took needed steps to keep the banking system from collapsing, to get credit flowing again, and to help responsible homeowners -- hurt by falling home prices -- to stay in their homes.

In the second phase, we're now investing in projects to repair and upgrade roads and bridges, ports and water systems -- and in schools and clean energy initiatives throughout Ohio and all across the country. These are projects that are creating good jobs and bring lasting improvements to our communities and our country.

There's no doubt that the steps we've taken have helped stave off a much deeper disaster and even greater job loss. They've saved and helped create jobs and have begun to put the brakes on this devastating recession. But I know that for the millions of Americans who are looking for work, and for those who are struggling in this economy, full recovery can't come soon enough.

I hear from you at town hall meetings like this. I read your letters. The stories I hear are the first thing that I think about in the morning; they're the last thing I think about at night. They're the focus of my attention every waking minute of every day. The simple truth is that it took years to get into this mess, and it will take more than a few months to dig our way out of it. But I want to promise you this, Ohio, we will get there -- and we are doing everything in our power to get our people back to work.

We also have to do more than just rescue this economy from recession; we need to address the fundamental problems that allowed this crisis to happen in the first place. Otherwise, we'd be guilty of the same short-term thinking that got us into this mess. That's what Washington has done for decades. We put things off. And that's what we have to change.

Now is the time to rebuild this economy stronger than before. Strong enough to compete in the 21st century. Strong enough to avoid the waves of boom and bust that have time and time again unleashed a torrent of misfortune on middle-class families across the country. That's why we're building a new energy economy that will unleash the innovative potential of America's entrepreneurs -- and create millions of new jobs -- helping to end our dependence on foreign oil. We are -- we're transforming our education system, from cradle to college, so that this nation once again has the best-educated workforce on the planet. We are pursuing health insurance reform so that every American has access to quality, affordable health coverage.

I want to talk about health care just for a second. I want to be clear: Reform isn't just about the nearly 46 million Americans without health insurance. I realize that with all the charges and the criticism being thrown out there in Washington, many Americans may be wondering, "Well, how does my family, or my business, stand to benefit from health insurance reform? What's in this for me?" Folks are asking that, so I want to answer those questions briefly.

If you have health insurance, the reform we're proposing will give you more security. You just heard Rick's story. Reform will keep the government out of your health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your coverage if you're happy with it. So don't let folks say that somehow we're going to be forcing government-run health care. It's just not true. And it will keep the insurance companies out of your health care decisions, too – by stopping insurers from cherry-picking who they cover, and holding insurers to a higher standard for what they cover.

You won't have to worry about receiving a surprise bill in the mail, because we'll limit the amount your insurance company can force you to pay out of your own pocket.

You won't have to worry about preexisting conditions, because -- never again will anyone in America be denied coverage because of a previous illness or injury.

You won't have to worry about losing coverage if you lose or leave your job, because every American who needs insurance will have access to affordable plans through a health insurance exchange – a marketplace where insurance companies will compete to cover you, not to deny you coverage.

And if you run a small business and you're looking to provide insurance for your employees, you'll be able to choose a plan through this exchange, as well. I've heard from small business owners across America trying to do the right thing, but year after year premiums rise higher and choices grow more limited. And that's certainly true right here in Ohio.

Now, if you're a taxpayer concerned about deficits, I want you to understand I'm concerned about deficits, too. Because in the eight years before we came into office, Washington enacted two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans, added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, funded two wars -- all without paying for it -- didn't pay for it. The national debt doubled. We were handed a $1.3 trillion deficit when we walked in the door -- one we necessarily had to add to in the short term to deal with this financial crisis.

Now, I have to tell you, I have to say, that folks have a lot of nerve who helped get us into this fiscal hole and then start going around trying to talk about fiscal responsibility. I'm always a little surprised that people don't have a little more shame -- about having created a mess and then try to point fingers, but that's another topic.

Because the truth is, is that I am now President and I am -- and I am responsible, and together we have to restore a sense of responsibility in Washington. We have to do what businesses and families do -- we've got to cut out the things we don't need to pay for the things we do.

And that's why I pledged that I will not sign health insurance reform -- as badly as I think it's necessary, I won't sign it if that reform adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade -- and I mean what I say.

Now, we have estimated that two-thirds of the cost of reform to bring health care security to every American can actually be paid for by reallocating money that's already in the system but is being wasted in federal health care programs. So let me repeat what I just said: About two-thirds of health care reform can be paid for not with new revenues, not with tax hikes, just with taking money that's not being spent wisely and moving it into things that will actually make people healthy.

And that includes, by the way -- right now we spend more than $100 billion in unwarranted subsidies that go to insurance companies as part of Medicare -- subsidies that do nothing to improve care for our seniors. We ought to take that money and use it to actually treat people and cover people, not to line pockets of insurers. And I'm pleased that Congress has already embraced these proposals. And while they're currently working through proposals to finance the remaining costs, I continue to insist that health care reform not be paid for on the backs of middle-class families.

Now, in addition to making sure that this plan doesn't add to the deficit in the short term, the bill I sign must also slow the growth of health care costs, while improving care, in the long run.
I just came from the Cleveland Clinic where I toured the cardiac surgery unit, met some of the doctors who are achieving incredible results for their patients. There's important work being done there as well as at the University Hospitals and MetroHealth. And Cleveland Clinic has one of the best health information technology systems in the country. And that means they can track patients and their progress. It means that they can see what treatments work and what treatments are unnecessary. It means they can provide better care for patients. They don't have to duplicate test after test because it's all online. They can help patients manage chronic diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure and asthma and emphysema by coordinating with doctors and nurses both in the hospital and in the community.

And here's the remarkable thing: They actually have some of the lowest costs for the best care. That's the interesting thing about our health care system. Often, better care produces lower, not higher, expenses, because better care leads to fewer errors that cost money and lives. You, or your doctor, don't have to fill out the same form a dozen times. Medical professionals are free to treat people -- not just illnesses. And patients are provided preventive care earlier -- like mammograms and physicals -- to avert more expensive and invasive treatment later.

That's why our proposals include a variety of reforms that would save both money and improve care -- and why the nation's largest organizations representing doctors and nurses have embraced our plan. Our proposals would change incentives so that doctors and nurses finally are free to give patients the best care, not just the most expensive care. And we also want to create an independent group of doctors and medical experts who are empowered to eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare -- a proposal that could save even more money.

So overall, our proposals will improve the quality of care for our seniors, save them thousands of dollars on prescription drugs, and that, by the way, is why AARP has endorsed our reform efforts, as well.

So the fact is, lowering costs is essential for families and businesses here in Ohio and all across the country. Let's take the Ohio example -- over the past few years premiums have risen nearly nine times faster than wages. That's something that Rick and his wife understand very well. As we meet today, we're seeing double-digit rate increases on insurance premiums all over America. There are reports of insurers raising rates by 28 percent in California; seeking a 23 percent increase in Connecticut; proposing as much as a 56 percent increase in Michigan. If we don't act, these premium hikes will just be a preview of coming attractions. And that's a future you can't afford. That is a future that America can't afford.

We spend one of every six of our dollars on health care in America, and that's on track to double in the next three decades. The biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid. Small businesses struggle to cover workers while competing with large businesses. Large businesses struggle to cover workers while competing in the global economy. And we'll never know the full cost of the dreams put on hold, the entrepreneurial ideas that are allowed to languish, the small businesses never founded -- because of the fear of being without insurance, or having to pay for a policy on your own.

So, Ohio, that's why we seek reform. And in pursuit of this reform we've forged a consensus that has never before been reached in the history of this country. Senators and representatives in five committees are working on legislation; three have already produced a bill. Health care providers have agreed to do their part to reduce the rate of growth in health care spending. Hospitals have agreed to bring down costs. The drug companies have agreed to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. The American Nurses Association, the American Medical Association, representing millions of nurses and doctors who know our health care system best, they've announced their support for reform.

So we have never been closer -- we have never been closer to achieving quality, affordable health care for all Americans. But at the same time, there are those who would seek to delay and defeat reform -- is that the air-conditioning? That's good. It's a little warm. You can still hear me, though.

You know, we had one Republican strategist who told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to "go for the kill." Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about "breaking" me -- when it's really the American people who are being broken by rising health care costs and declining coverage. You know, the Republican -- the Republican Party chair, seeking to stall our efforts, recently went so far as to say that health insurance reform was happening "too soon."

Well, first of all, let me just be clear. If there's not a deadline in Washington, nothing happens. Nothing ever happens. And, you know, we just heard today that, well, we may not be able to get the bill out of the Senate by the end of August -- or the beginning of August. That's okay. I just want people to keep on working. Just keep working. I want the bill to get out of the committees; and then I want that bill to go to the floor; and then I want that bill to be reconciled between the House and the Senate; and then I want to sign a bill. And I want it done by the end of this year. I want it done by the fall.

Whenever I hear people say that it's happening too soon, I think that's a little odd. We've been talking about health care reform since the days of Harry Truman. How could it be too soon? I don't think it's too soon for the families who've seen their premiums rise faster than wages year after year. It's not too soon for the businesses forced to drop coverage or shed workers because of mounting health care expenses. It's not too soon for taxpayers asked to close widening deficits that stem from rising health care costs -- costs that threaten to leave our children with a mountain of debt.

Reform may be coming too soon for some in Washington, but it's not soon enough for the American people. We can get this done. We don't shirk from a challenge.

We can get this done. People keep on saying, wow, this is really hard, why are you taking it on? You know, America doesn't shirk from a challenge. We were reminded of that earlier this week, when Americans and people all over the world marked the 40th anniversary of the moment that the astronauts of the Apollo 11 walked on the surface of the moon. It was the realization of a goal President Kennedy had set nearly a decade earlier. Ten years earlier he'd said we're going to the moon. And there were times where people said, oh, this is foolish, this is impossible. But President Kennedy understood and the American people set about proving what this nation is capable of doing when we set our minds to doing it.

There are those now who are seeing our failure to address stubborn problems as a sign that our best days are behind us; that somehow we've lost our sense of purpose, and toughness, and capacity to lead; that we can't do big things anymore. Well, I believe that this generation, like generations past, stand ready to defy the skeptics and the naysayers, that we can once again summon this American spirit. We can rescue our economy. We can rebuild it stronger than before. We can achieve quality, affordable health care for every single American. That's what we're called upon to do. That's what we will do with your help, Ohio. With your help.

All right, thank you.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

A Speech Writer’s Nightmare

He’s only one man. He doesn’t spend his entire day giving speeches. So why does the President need an entire team of speech writers?

Today’s state visit to Russia should illustrate the answer quite nicely. His schedule included one major speech lasting half an hour, two others of more than ten minutes each, another of at least five minutes duration, and brief remarks with both President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin.

When the President of the United States speaks, it is not just to the people back home. It is not only to the people in the audience he is addressing, or of the nation he is visiting. When the President speaks, the whole world listens. Every word has implications. Sometimes, even, direct consequences.

Consider what is involved in producing each of these speeches. Someone has to sit and do research before even making a preliminary draft. That means researching the policy, the group to whom the speech will be given, and the foreign policy implications. Then a first draft is made, and circulated around different offices of the White House. It might go to the Communications Director, the Foreign Policy Advisor, maybe even the National Security Advisor - just as examples. Their revisions are incorporated.

Then it is sent to the Department of State, where different desks - the Russian desk, the Office of Protocol for example, make more revisions.

If the President is mentioning something related to, say, agriculture or education, those Departments will probably be involved. Then, it’s back to the White House for more honing by the speech writer.

In all this, the speech writer must keep the words true to the President’s individual voice - his way of speaking. The danger is that with too much input from various interests, the whole thing will sound like a disjointed mess. It could make the President sound unauthentic.

Finally, shortly before the trip itself, the near-final draft is circulated at the highest levels of the White House, more changes made, and the final draft loaded into teleprompters. Except for last-minute changes!

It’s a nightmare. That is why you need a stable of speech writers for just one man.

As for the substance of what was said today - I am rather shocked the President said this - during his meeting with opposition leaders in Moscow: “And we obviously still have much work to do with our own democracy in the United States, but nevertheless, I think we share some common values and interest in building a strong, democratic culture in Russia as well as the United States.”

Really? We have much work to do with our own democracy in the United States? We need to build a strong, democratic culture in the United States? This is the oldest functioning democracy in the world. The oldest government of any kind, as a matter of fact. Thanks to that democracy. How much more democratic culture do we need to build?

Even if you think that’s true - Why go to Russia and say it? I think it’s a mistake, and I wonder if anybody here at home will pick up on it. Such are the dangers when the President speaks.

Following is the President’s schedule and transcript as posted by the White House, with links.

Obama Speeches and Remarks On visit to Russia - 7/7/2009

Remarks by the President at Parallel Civil Society Summit - 1485 words

Remarks by the President at Parallel Business Summit - 1147 words

Remarks by President Obama in Meeting With Opposition Leaders - 310 words (partial transcript)

Remarks by President Obama and President Medvedev of Russia Before Meeting - 187 words

Remarks by President Obama and Pime Minister Putin of Russia Before Meeting - 137 words

Remarks by President Obama at the New Economic School Graduation - 4233 words


From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

On The Fourth Of July

Speech By: President Barack Obama
Title: On the Fourth of July, Overcoming America’s Challenges
Date: July 4, 2009
Location: The White House
Occasion: Weekly Message - Independence Day
Length (words): 746
Video Posted: www.whitehouse.gov

Analysis:
President Obama is a particularly gifted orator. No matter how you view his policies, he has a gift for oratory few can match. It was said of the actor Orson Welles, that he had the ability to read from the telephone directory, and make it sound exciting. The President might well be counted in such company.

But good material helps. So, in honor of this past weekend’s festivities, let’s take a look at the President’s Fourth of July address to the American people.

It’s traditional for the President to recognize important national holidays, particularly one of historic significance like Independence Day, then use the occasion to promote the administration’s agenda. This does not fail that tradition.

The first task of any speech is to establish a shared identity with the audience. This is a theme we will refer to in almost every speech we examine. He starts by wishing everyone a happy fourth of July, and talks about how it’s a chance for family and friends to get together - things most Americans will identify with.

He then goes on to talk about how the American Revolution succeeded against long odds - “that a small band of patriots would declare independence from a powerful empire;” A style note - For the most part, the word “that” is to effective writing, what the phrase “you know” is to effective conversation - it detracts. I usually go through a speech and remove the word “that” from about 90% of the places it appears. Here, it is used twice more in succession to emphasize points. Repeating a specific word or phrase to help the audience recognize each new point the speaker makes, is an effective speech technique. Here, it might work.

But then a new repetitive phrase “It is what,” is introduced. Frankly, this is a far better repetitive phrase. I would edit out that.

Speaking of over-used repetition, he begins sentences with “And” seven times. Some claim you shouldn’t ever start a sentence with the word “And” - usually those folks who also claim you can’t end a sentence with a preposition - another “rule” that isn’t true. Nothing in English grammar forbids either, but both can be employed too often. In this case, that frequency, seven times in a work with only 43 sentences - is too often.

He makes a pitch for his administration’s policy priorities, and then turns to confront “the naysayers” who oppose those policies. He never defines exactly who those naysayers are, and that’s perfectly fine for two reasons - it allows the audience to define in their own minds who the opposition might be, and it denies any specific person or group, the chance to rebut the President’s contention or attack his policies.

It also reinforces the shared identity with the audience “We versus they” - especially when “they” is amorphous - is always a good technique.

In the end, I hope you all took the President’s most sage advice - to kick back and enjoy the holiday weekend.

From the Bully Pulpit - Tom


Text:

Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
July 4, 2009

Hello and Happy Fourth of July, everybody. This weekend is a time to get together with family and friends, kick back, and enjoy a little time off. And I hope that’s exactly what all of you do. But I also want to take a moment today to reflect on what I believe is the meaning of this distinctly American holiday.

Today, we are called to remember not only the day our country was born – we are also called to remember the indomitable spirit of the first American citizens who made that day possible.

We are called to remember how unlikely it was that our American experiment would succeed at all; that a small band of patriots would declare independence from a powerful empire; and that they would form, in the new world, what the old world had never known – a government of, by, and for the people.

That unyielding spirit is what defines us as Americans. It is what led generations of pioneers to blaze a westward trail.

It is what led my grandparents’ generation to persevere in the face of a Depression and triumph in the face of tyranny.

It is what led generations of American workers to build an industrial economy unrivalled around the world.

It is what has always led us, as a people, not to wilt or cower at a difficult moment, but to face down any trial and rise to any challenge, understanding that each of us has a hand in writing America’s destiny.

That is the spirit we are called to show once more. We are facing an array of challenges on a scale unseen in our time. We are waging two wars. We are battling a deep recession. And our economy – and our nation itself – are endangered by festering problems we have kicked down the road for far too long: spiraling health care costs; inadequate schools; and a dependence on foreign oil.

Meeting these extraordinary challenges will require an extraordinary effort on the part of every American. And that is an effort we cannot defer any longer.

Now is the time to lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity. Now is the time to revamp our education system, demand more from teachers, parents, and students alike, and build schools that prepare every child in America to outcompete any worker in the world.

Now is the time to reform an unsustainable health care system that is imposing crushing costs on families, businesses, large and small, and state and federal budgets. We need to protect what works, fix what’s broken, and bring down costs for all Americans. No more talk. No more delay. Health care reform must happen this year.

And now is the time to meet our energy challenge – one of the greatest challenges we have ever confronted as a people or as a planet. For the sake of our economy and our children, we must build on the historic bill passed by the House of Representatives, and make clean energy the profitable kind of energy so that we can end our dependence on foreign oil and reclaim America’s future.

These are some of the challenges that our generation has been called to meet. And yet, there are those who would have us try what has already failed; who would defend the status quo. They argue that our health care system is fine the way it is and that a clean energy economy can wait. They say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals.

These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy. That is not how a cluster of 13 colonies became the United States of America.

We are not a people who fear the future. We are a people who make it. And on this July 4th, we need to summon that spirit once more. We need to summon the same spirit that inhabited Independence Hall two hundred and thirty-three years ago today.

That is how this generation of Americans will make its mark on history. That is how we will make the most of this extraordinary moment. And that is how we will write the next chapter in the great American story. Thank you, and Happy Fourth of July.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom