Super Speeches

Title: Win One For the Gipper
Speech By: Knute Rockne, Notre Dame Coach
Date: November 10, 1928
Location: Yankee Stadium
Occasion: Notre Dame vs. Army
Video Posted: YouTube (Hollywood version)
Analysis:
In recognition of this weekend’s final game of the professional football season, we turn our attention to football speeches.

Football lends itself to inspiring speeches. A well-timed, well-delivered speech by the coach, either before the coin-toss, or at halftime, can deliver the emotional jolt that benefits a football team in a way that would not work for a more dispassionate sport like baseball, with its far longer season.

Of the Top Ten Sports speeches named by Real Clear Sports last Summer, fully half were football related. The highest ranked among those was Notre Dame Coach Knute Rockne’s “Win One For The Gipper” speech at the Notre Dame vs. Army game of 1928.

Army was a mighty team that season, coming in undefeated for the showdown at Yankee stadium, before 90,000 spectators. Notre Dame, fighting injuries to key players, had already lost twice. Searching for a way to inspire his seemingly overmatched team, Rockne gave the most famous pep talk in football history.

Invoking the memory of Notre Dame’s most famous player, George Gipp, who had died eight years earlier, of a streptococcus throat infection contracted on the field, Rockne tried to inspire his players. A scoreless tie at half time, Rockne’s speech propelled Notre Dame on to a surprise 12 - 6 victory.

A long and classic series, it was another Rockne team’s contest against Army four years earlier, that gave rise to a sports writer’s famous appellation. As Grantland Rice so famously penned it: “Outlined against a blue, gray October sky the Four Horsemen rode again.
In dramatic lore they are known as famine, pestilence, destruction and death. These are only aliases. Their real names are: Stuhldreher, Miller, Crowley and Layden.”

The Four Horsemen of Notre Dame rode on to an undefeated season, victory in the Rose Bowl, and the national championship.

Left halfback Jim Crowley went on to a coaching career, becoming head coach at Fordham University. There, he put together a dominating offensive line whose players were nicknamed the “Seven Blocks of Granite.”

One of those granite lineman was an undersized guard who also did some coaching after college. The trophy that will be awarded to the winning team on Sunday is named in his honor. The Lombardi trophy.

Text:
Rockne, who had been at Gipp´s bedside the night before his death, repeated the young athlete´s last wish to the team.

“I've got to go, Rock. It's all right. I'm not afraid. Some time, Rock, when the team is up against it, when things are wrong and the breaks are beating the boys, ask them to go in there with all they've got and win just one for the Gipper. I don't know where I'll be then, Rock. But I'll know about it, and I'll be happy.”

Then he continued:

“The day before he died George Gipp asked me to wait until the situation seemed hopeless - then ask a Notre Dame team to go out and beat Army for him. This is the day, and you are the team.”

It was, and they were.

From The Bully Pulpit - Tom

Enchanting the Soul

Columnist Mark Bowden, writing recently on the power of oratory, said: “The real work of rhetoric is to explain and persuade.” All right, that’s hard to argue with, but it describes many uses of words. It describes, for instance, a dry, passionless legal brief.  It even encompasses the police officer’s citation which may have necessitated that legal brief.

Words which merely “explain and persuade” do not necessarily constitute rhetoric. For our purposes, the definition of  rhetoric must meet a higher standard.

If, as Plato described it, rhetoric is the “art of enchanting the soul,” how does that enchantment take place? What is the source of the magic that casts such a spell on a listener? What happy constellation of words constitutes rhetoric?

Rhetoric, at its best, involves the ability to create striking mental images using words.

People no longer crowd close into a stone paved Agora, as in Plato’s day, straining to get within earshot of a speaker. Today, sound systems guarantee everyone can hear what is said.  Still, the power to enchant a listener’s soul is not subordinate to the advances of technology. It is, as it ever was, a force lodged in the writer and speaker.

Even in a world where speeches can be accompanied by power point presentations, or photos projected on a screen to provide illustration, rhetoric - that happy combination of words - still offers the highest power to create and sustain the enchantment which can possess our souls.

Take the image projected in President Kennedy’s inaugural address: “The torch has been passed, to a new generation ... ” It evokes an image of one of Plato’s contemporaries, an ancient Greek runner - Phedipiddes perhaps - arm outstretched, handing off a torch on its journey to the Olympic games.

That the passing of the Olympic torch is a modern invention, first used to open the 1936 Berlin Olympics, matters not. In fact, it demonstrates the power of Kennedy’s rhetoric, to create a mental image of a scene that never existed.

Or, take the way Lincoln chose to begin the Gettysburg address: “Four score and seven years ago, ...” Any number of reviewers have observed that using the number “eighty seven” would have been a far clearer way to communicate the time span of which he was speaking. But Lincoln’s intent was to create a Biblical image for his audience, to remind them their nation was engaged in a noble, even holy, crusade.

There is no precise formula to define what constitutes rhetoric and what does not. Nor is there one which describes how to create it or how not to. In that sense, it is much like Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of pornography - “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it,” (Jacobellis v. Ohio - 1964).

But, just because we can’t define it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek it. After all, the Grail for which we, as speech writers and listeners alike, must quest, is nothing short of an enchanted soul.

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

I Concede - Martha Coakley

Speech By: Martha Coakley - Senate Candidate
Title: I Concede
Date: January 19, 2010
Location: Boston Massachusetts
Occasion: Loss of Senate Special Election
Length (minutes): 8:21
Video Posted: YouTube
Background:
Martha Coakley wasn’t supposed to have to give this speech. Unfortunately for her, she did. Scott Brown did 66 public events, during the six week special election campaign, or, 11 a week. Coakley did just 19 events during the same stretch, or just over three a week. While she apparently recognized she would lose at the end, the personal disappointment of seeing a lofty goal denied because of some internal flaw - well, actually, that really is the stuff of ancient Greek tragedy.

Analysis:
Coakley’s remarks were prepared - she keeps looking down at the podium and moving something with her hands - which is always a good thing in a tough situation like this.

In my earlier post on concession speeches, I detailed the elements of a successful concession -

• Announce you have called the winner to concede, and wish that person luck in office.
• Thank your family. If your campaign has been at all active, it has truly put a burden on them.
• Thank your supporters for all their hard work.
• Mention how you much you appreciate the opportunity to represent your party, and to meet as many voters as you did.
• Say thank you once more, then leave the stage.

Although in a slightly different order, it’s a formula Coakley stuck to with little variation.

She starts out with a weak attempt at humor - “I don’t know, somebody told me there was a crowd out here.”

Then she goes immediately to the point of her talk - “I just got off the phone with Scott Brown and I’ve offered him my congratulations, and my best wishes on his victory tonight.”

Despite her obvious personal disappointment, she then shows a moment of true class - “I told him Mr. Brown, you’ve got two lovely daughters, which he does.”

With only this slight variation from the formula I suggested, she thanks her supporters first - “You poured your hearts and souls into this campaign. I want to say an incredibly sincere thank you.”

Next she turns - literally - to thank the family standing up there with her, husband Tom, her sisters, and nieces and nephews. She talks about Tom’s hard work on the campaign trail, and, in a very human aside, about the family members who couldn’t really comprehend what the campaign was about, their two dogs.

She then offers thanks to a few very special volunteers in her campaign, President Obama, Former President Clinton, and a very personal thank you to Vicki Kennedy, widow of the Senator whose seat Coakley had hoped to win.

Finally, she gets to the fourth element of the formula, talking about the ideas and issues she campaigned on, and which are philosophical underpinnings of her party. She talks about meeting voters who share those views.

Then, if there is any failure in her concession, she blows the conclusion. She quotes from the final passage of the most famous speech of the man whose seat she had hoped to assume. That it was his concession speech, in the only race he ever lost, makes the failure more telling.

She quotes it this way - “We will always remember our terrific Senator Ted Kennedy and his words - the work begins anew, the hope rises again, and the dream lives on.”

If this is the failure of the speech writer, then that person should be ashamed. There are far too many sources readily available on the internet where the correct language is posted. I have seen them.

Perhaps though, it was just the failure of mist-clouded eyes to properly read what had correctly been transcribed. I’d like to think that’s what it was.

For the record, here’s how Senator Ted Kennedy ended his only concession speech:
“For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.
For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.”


From The Bully Pulpit - Tom 

Equal Time

Title: Response to the State of the State
Speech By: Senator Dean Skelos
Background:
It is traditional for the other party to respond to a major speech, such as the State of the State, or State of the Union. We examined the former, so this is an examination of the response by Senate Republican Leader Dean Skelos. It is our version of equal time.
Full Disclosure - In examining New York politicians, we are talking about people I know personally. Governor Paterson and I have discussed seeing eye dog legislation, and Senator Skelos addresses me on a first-name basis. But none who ascends The Bully Pulpit is absolved of scrutiny from our little Congregation.
Date: January 6, 2010
Location: Albany, New York
Length (words): 850
Video Posted: YouTube
Text Posted: New York State Senator Dean G. Skelos

Analysis:
This speech starts out with the phrase “I’m Senate Republican Leader Dean Skelos.” That’s a bad start. “I” is always a bad way to start a speech. It does not establish that all-important shared identification with the audience that gets people to listen. It generally does the opposite.

Granted, Governor Paterson spoke live before a crowded Assembly chamber, with an introduction by the Lieutenant Governor, while Senator Skelos spoke on television. But there are ways to handle this problem. Why not have an announcer introduce the Senator, or even superimpose on-screen titles? Actually, why not both? To compound the problem, the original tape is posted on the Web - unedited. It would take little effort to trim the first four seconds of video, or even just the sound, and insert a voice-over intro and titles. That way, later viewers would see a better product.

There are other flaws with this talk, though none is extremely damaging, and it’s not a bad speech, on balance. But it should have been better. The thing is - when you are competing with a Governor, who gets a greater share of public attention, you must maximize your opportunities.

This is an era when identification with political parties is at an all-time low. The largest portion of the electorate is not Democrat, nor Republican, it is unaffiliated voters - “independents.” So a speech that appeals heavily to partisan identification is likely to miss a large portion of the intended audience.

Yes, you want to blame the other side for their mistakes, and take credit for what you did right, that’s how democracy works. But he uses the phrase “Republican” or “Senate Republicans” half a dozen times. That’s more than once a minute, in this five minute speech. After once or twice the phrase “my colleagues and I,” might be preferable. If you are politically aware enough to listen to these speeches, you pretty much know what the sides are.

In terms of assigning blame to the other party, I actually think he lost a good opportunity. Early in the speech, he talks about how the budget adopted by the Democrats last year made life tougher for New York families, reciting a litany of problems.
“You lost your STAR rebate checks that helped you pay your property taxes.”
“Your energy taxes were raised, increasing your utility bills.”
“They increased the cost of health insurance for your family.”
“And, they made it more expensive for you to register your car, renew your driver’s license and pay for every day family needs.”
This was truly a lost opportunity to make an “Us versus them” comparison. For example, when you think about it, if “You lost your STAR rebate check,” you should start looking for it in the last place you saw it. That’s not what happened. It was taken away in a budget maneuver.

How about phrasing it this way instead:
“They took away our STAR rebate checks, which helped pay our property taxes.”
“They  raised energy taxes, increasing our utility bills.”
“They increased the cost of our health insurance.”
“And, they made it more expensive to register our cars, renew our driver’s licenses and pay for every day family needs.”

It makes the other party “they,” and, by substituting "our" for "your," makes it clear on whose side the speaker stands.

Equal time isn’t really equal - except perhaps at The Bully Pulpit - you have to make the most of your opportunities. This could have been better.

From 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