A Speaker's Blunder

A single speech created a major controversy in the race for Governor of New York this week. Drafted by a Brooklyn Rabbi, and delivered by a Buffalo candidate, it conveyed some harsh opinions about homosexuals.

Few campaign speeches gather much notice. Most are given to small groups of people, with little fanfare, and for the most part, are designed to please as many people as possible.

So, how did Carl Paladino wind up in a firestorm, then pour gasoline on it, then make things worse by disavowing something he never should have said in the first place - angering those who agreed with his original remarks? It begins with his speechwriter!

As it turns out, Mr. Paladino does not normally use prepared speeches. That’s always a mistake, especially for a statewide candidate venturing out into territories where he is not well known. Yes, the local town Supervisor probably can speak off the top of his head in front of the local Lion’s Club. It’s a friendly situation, and probably everyone there knows each other. On a larger stage - say, the third largest state in the country, a little more preparation is called for.

To compound this lack of preparation, the speech Mr. Paladino did give in Brooklyn last weekend wasn’t written by his staff - people who share his goals, but by a local Rabbi, Yehuda Levin, who had his own political agenda to promote.

A speechwriter is tasked with crafting the words that convey the speaker’s beliefs. Often, the writer and speaker share the same beliefs, but it is not necessary that they do.

But whatever beliefs are expressed in a drafted speech, they must convey what the speaker wants to convey. Not only in terms of the speaker’s beliefs, but also in terms of the speaker’s goals. It is the writer’s duty to know what those are, and put them down in appropriate language so the audience will come away knowing what they are.

Prior to addressing the group in Brooklyn, Rabbi Levin handed Paladino the speech he had drafted for the occasion. Apparently, Paladino did some cursory editing, removing some passages that even he found uncomfortable (imagine how offensive those must have been), then gave that speech to a group of people he did not know. The result - a small forest consumed to produce the newsprint used in reporting the aftermath, along with enough blog posts to keep Google’s search engines occupied until election day.

If you’re not willing to stand by the things you’ve said in your speech - and in the end, Paladino was not so willing - then you shouldn’t be saying them.

It calls to mind a more general problem in the political world. Too many political candidates, having worked their way up from the Lion’s Club circuit, believe they are better at speaking off the top of their head. They seldom are. I know, I’ve listened to far too many of them.

Here’s a suggestion for every politician. Sit down and write a stump speech - a general speech about the problems your community, district, county, state, whatever - is facing, and the solutions you have to offer. Show it to a few people you trust to give an honest opinion - not your spouse - and hone it. Learn the basic points and a few solid lines, rather than memorize it.

In six months, repeat the process. That’s how fast the political world changes.

Better yet - hire a speech writer from your campaign account. For the cost of a few television spots, you can get some solid help. For Carl Paladino, it’s going to take thousands of television spots to undo the damage from one “free” speech.

And even they are unlikely to help.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Ending My Campaign

Speech By: David Paterson, Governor of New York
Title: Ending My Campaign
Date: February 26, 2010
Location: Governor’s Office, New York, NY
Occasion: Withdrawal from Campaign
Video Posted: YouTube - Azi Paybarah’s channel

Analysis:
There is a temptation to draw parallels between this speech, and President Lyndon Johnson’s March 1968 speech, in which he announced he would not run for re-election. But Johnson’s announcement was a surprise. This was not.

Forced by events to make an announcement everyone in the political world knew was coming, the Governor tried to put the best face possible on what he had to say.

In a previous post, we observed that a consideration the Governor brings to speech making is that he is legally blind. In an age when many politicians wouldn’t give their mailing address without a teleprompter, Governor Paterson pretty much memorizes what he has to say.

Added to the discomfort of being forced to end an election campaign that began only a week earlier, the difficulty of relying on memory was obvious here. For example, he used the speech as a form of valedictory address, claiming credit for accomplishments he felt deserving.

At one point, he said this: “I have lowered the playing field for minority and women owned businesses.” I suspect he actually meant “leveled the playing field.” Lowering the playing field wouldn’t do much to help people who needed it.

Later he says, “It hasn’t been the latest distraction, it has been an accumulation of obstacles that have obfuscated me from bringing my message to the public.” I think he meant to say “have obstructed me.” To obfuscate means to “confuse, bewilder or stupefy,” and I don’t believe he meant to say that was done to him.

We all have moments in our daily conversations where we search our memories for the right word and come up with something close, but not quite right. I suspect that happened here. It’s an example of why a carefully written speech is so helpful to a public speaker.

Few off-the-cuff speakers are as good as they like to think they are.

Then he announces what everyone already knew: “I am ending my campaign for Governor of the state of New York.”

I have one final observation to make - not as a speech writer, but as someone who has served as a news source for many publications for more than three decades. In the story that precipitated this speech, the New York Times reports: “The woman’s lawyer asked that she not be identified by name because she feared retaliation,” that means she was a confidential source. Yet, in the same story they report the name of the Governor’s aide she lived with for four years. Do they honestly think people can’t figure out who she is? The very next day, every other newspaper in New York had printed that woman’s name. It’s a cardinal sin of journalism for a newspaper to burn a confidential source. According to the Times' own report, they did that here.

Length (words): 811

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Unwelcome Discredit - the Aftermath

My previous post, Unwelcome Discredit, examined the speech of Senator Hiram Monserrate, during the debate and vote over the resolution expelling him from the New York State Senate.

Immediately following the expulsion, Governor David Paterson called a special election for March 16th, to fill the vacant seat. Two days later Monserrate filed in federal court for an injunction to halt the special election, and asking that his expulsion be voided on Constitutional grounds.

Today, that injunction was denied. According to the opinion issued by District Court Judge William Pauley, “The question of who should represent the 13th Senatorial District is one for the voters, not this court.”

I like Liz Benjamin's less lawyerly, but no less accurate, synopsis of the Judge's opinion. “In short, Pauley to Monserrate: You want to keep your seat? Run for it.”

The bottom line is - Monserrate was legally expelled.

However, nothing prohibits ex-Senator Monserrate from running in the special election to fill the seat he won little over a year ago. The interesting question is - how does the Senate react if he runs in the special election and wins?

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Unwelcome Discredit

Speech By: Sen. Hiram Monserrate
Title: Unwelcome Discredit
Date: February 9, 2010
Location: Senate Chamber - New York State Capitol
Occasion: Debate on Senate Resolution condemning the conduct and calling for the expulsion of Senator Hiram Monserrate
Background:
In December 2008, shortly after his election to the post, Senator-elect Hiram Monserrate was involved in a domestic incident with girlfriend Karla Giraldo, which resulted in her treatment at a hospital for a severe cut to the face which required numerous sutures to repair.

Charged with three felonies and a misdemeanor, Monserrate chose a non-jury trial. He was subsequently convicted by the judge of a single misdemeanor count - assault in the third degree, by recklessly causing injury to Karla Giraldo by forcibly dragging her by her arm. Although a criminal conviction, a misdemeanor does not result in an officeholder automatically being removed, as in the case of a felony.

In the wake of the conviction, a special Senate committee was constituted to review the matter. Their final report recommended the Senate take one of two actions against their colleague - expulsion, or censure, with the removal of privileges.

Only the expulsion resolution was considered, and it was adopted by a vote of 53 - 8. He became the first New York legislator to be expelled by his colleagues since 1861. Before casting his vote against his own expulsion, Senator Monserrate spoke.

As reported by the Daily News’ Liz Benjamin, the speech lasted almost 16 minutes, which is extraordinarily long for a Chamber whose rules generally allow members only two minutes to explain their vote.

Video Posted: YouTube
Text Posted: Scribd (Free Membership required)
Analysis:
It may be nothing Senator Monserrate said last night would have changed many votes. However, I should note that a few Senators I spoke with before the vote, were aware an expulsion of this type deprives the people of that district of their chosen representative. It wasn’t a comfortable position for them, and a speech at the right time, and in the right place, might have lessened the penalty. This speech certainly wasn’t it.

There are two approaches that might work in a situation like this - to say “you have no right to deprive the people of my district of their chosen representative, since the law doesn’t explicitly call for it, and still call yourselves a democratic institution;” or “yes, I’ve made mistakes, we all do, but this penalty is not appropriate for what happened in this case.”

During his speech, he tries both approaches, and that is a mistake. It could be one or the other, but to mix the two puts the arguments at cross purposes.

In fact, that is a major problem with the speech - it has no single focus of argument. It rambles back and forth between being defiant, accusatory, apologetic, and to some degree, insulting.

I thought the first five paragraphs were effective in making a “depriving the people” case, but then he goes off track and begins attacking the very people who are voting on his future. This stuck out: “Is it any wonder we have earned the label of “Dysfunctional” that has bestowed upon us?”

Attacking the institution itself is not a wise idea, especially when the people you are speaking to are acting to protect the integrity of that institution. It’s especially unwise when in the very first paragraph you admit to having engaged in “Behavior that is unbecoming of a state Senator.” Later on, he also admits to having “brought unwelcome discredit to this chamber.”

If there was ever a challenge for the members of the Senate to prove they could function when it came to making a tough decision, that was it. And they proved themselves. But not until after his  speech made it a bit easier for them.

This speech might have been of some benefit if he had given it to the special Senate committee. Some of the points he raises are indeed valid. But, as he points out in his speech, the committee never heard “from the only two people involved in the incident of Dec. 18, 2008.” What he forgot to mention is that he was invited to appear before them and refused the chance.

One thing that makes any speech better is giving it in the right place and time.

Length (words): 1144

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Winter of Reckoning

Speech By: Governor David Paterson
Title: State of the State Address - 2010
Date: January 6, 2010
Location: Assembly Chamber, the Capitol, Albany, New York
Occasion: Opening of the Legislative Session
Length (words): 3306
Text Posted: Scribd

Background:
This year’s State of the State message comes at a time of severe economic turmoil in a state that boasts the world’s eleventh largest economy. Or, at least it did until the economic downturn hit the Wall Street-based financial institutions which are responsible for driving so much of that economy.

They are also responsible for a disproportionate share of the revenues of state government. Their misfortune is the state’s disaster.

It is also a time of great political turmoil. This year, every statewide office is up for election - Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Comptroller, and both U.S. Senate seats. Only two of those six statewide officeholders were elected to the seat they now hold. For good measure, every seat in both houses of the state Legislature will be on the ballot.

Because this election falls in a census year, control of the all-important redistricting process is also at stake. Right now Democrats control everything. But if the Republicans take back the Senate, or even manage a tie, they will have a strong hand in the process of how districts are redrawn. This will play a major factor in every political calculation that is made.

Another consideration, at least for the state Senate, is that the chamber is only narrowly controlled by the party in power - the Democrats. It takes 32 votes to pass anything in the 62 seat Senate, and that’s exactly how many votes the Democrats have.

This precarious margin of control is what led to the coup that brought the Senate to a halt with three weeks left in the session last June. Even one defection on a controversial issue means the Democrats can’t pass their bills, and many suburban and upstate Senators are concerned about facing re-election after voting for such city-oriented legislation as the MTA payroll tax.

To add to the other uncertainties, one Senate Democrat, Senator Monseratte, was convicted of misdemeanor assault last year and faces the possibility of jail time, as well as the possibility of an expulsion resolution from some of his colleagues.

One final consideration the Governor brings to the speech making process is that he is legally blind. In an age when many politicians wouldn’t give their mailing address without a teleprompter, Governor Paterson pretty much memorizes what he has to say. Perhaps he takes inspiration from a poet of a few years back, who also had the ability to speak at length without written notes - a guy named Homer.

All these are calculations the Governor must consider as he ascends the rostrum on this cold, gray, January afternoon.

Analysis:
Governor Paterson began this speech well. He turned his visual disability to his advantage, by changing past practice. Instead of recognizing various dignitaries around the Chamber as previous Governors have done, he announced he wouldn’t do this, and said we are all citizens of equal standing. This neatly took care of two problems -
First, it avoided the problem of spotting those dignitaries in a large Chamber, by someone whose vision isn’t sufficient to that task.
Second, it is a great technique to establish that all important audience identification every speaker wants to establish.

He also established the tenor of the speech with a good rhetorical flourish, by calling this our “Winter of reckoning.” It evokes our nasty weather of late, ambient, political, and financial, and pays homage to Shakespeare at the same time.

He also ended well, with a reference to his disability, and the determination required for him to overcome it despite the doubts of others.

The middle was less successful. His focus on what he calls a “Reform Albany Ethics Act” seems almost a distraction, given the financial crises the state must confront this session. Perhaps it is intentional - a device to divert attention from the hard choices which must be made. But that seems counter-productive, particularly since it seems to declare war on the very Legislators he must work with to enact the other elements of his program.

However, he did introduce a surprise here, and with a nice turn of phrase as well, by announcing that among the targets of reform are the “so-called good government groups who hide their donors behind walls of sanctimony.” Those groups are the ones who usually focus on what they claim are other people’s ethical failings. They can’t be pleased the scrutiny will now be on them.

The Governor will never have the ability to give a long detailed speech, and that may be just as well. There are far more than enough of those already. Being a powerful orator does not always guarantee success as Governor - witness the tribulations at the end of Governor Cuomo’s last term. But in just under half an hour, he demonstrated the ability to speak as a Governor.

In all it was a reasonably effective speech. Now we must see if the ideas it conveyed meet with the same success.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom