-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
A Tale of Two Speeches
Author: BobR
Date: 05/22/2009 12:43:40
The yin and yang of presidential politics over the last year could not have been more evident than the dueling speeches yesterday of President Obama and former Vice-President Cheney. Like a good lawyer, the President built a compelling case for his actions, based on a series of simple logical points, sometimes acknowledging and then rebutting alternative points of view. Cheney, on the other hand, snarled his way through a repetitive amalgam of vague threats, hoping to - once again - induce fear.
The contrasts could not have been more striking: Logic -vs- fear; eloquence -vs- growl. One of the arguments against sex and violence on TV has been that repeated exposure to it so inures us to its shock that we become desensitized to it. This is something that the former Bush Administration seems to have forgotten, because they keep pulling out the 9/11 card every chance they get. Cheney used it 25 times in his speech yesterday. Within the context of his speech, and within the context of our collective mindset, the kneejerk convulsive sense of dread that the mention and memory of 9/11 used to induce has lessoned to the point that we've become more annoyed at the obvious attempts to manipulate our emotions than fearful. Cheney said, "That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory". I am certain that Cheney is frustrated that that "sense of general alarm" HAS faded, and been replaced with a definitive sense of resolute pragmatism. It makes it much more difficult to use fear as a tool.
Lest my lack of bipartisanship and/or the visual appeal (or lack thereof) and speaking styles of these two men stack the deck one way or the other, the text of Obama's speech can be read here; Cheney's speech is here. Cheney's speech is full of false strawman arguments such as when he says:
As Jon Stewart pointed out on The Daily Show last night - those are the only two choices? Really? There's no middle ground? One can't conclude that we must be vigilant, but pursue that vigilance using lawful and moral tactics?
He also contradicts himself:
God forbid we learn the truth. I guess we can't handle the truth.
TPM put together a short video showing the contrasts between the two speeches:
As expected, the comparisons were covered by the usual political pundits. But Keith Olbermann put together one of his Special Comments about Cheney and his speech:
Filtering out Olbermann's bombast and high dudgeon, he makes some compelling points, including refuting Cheney's self-justification for torture and its results, and the shotgun demonizing of anyone and everyone to distract from his own crimes of commission and omission.
Ultimately, I believe that the two speeches were not only indicative of a sea change in America's zeitgeist, but it helped to lay bare the manipulative machinations on emotion of the former administration. I certainly hope that those in this country that are ambivalent will compare and contrast, and then draw the conclusion that they were played for dupes by professional con men for the previous 8 years, and vow to never let it happen again.
Let logic and freedom from fear rule!
The contrasts could not have been more striking: Logic -vs- fear; eloquence -vs- growl. One of the arguments against sex and violence on TV has been that repeated exposure to it so inures us to its shock that we become desensitized to it. This is something that the former Bush Administration seems to have forgotten, because they keep pulling out the 9/11 card every chance they get. Cheney used it 25 times in his speech yesterday. Within the context of his speech, and within the context of our collective mindset, the kneejerk convulsive sense of dread that the mention and memory of 9/11 used to induce has lessoned to the point that we've become more annoyed at the obvious attempts to manipulate our emotions than fearful. Cheney said, "That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after September 11th, 2001 was a fading memory". I am certain that Cheney is frustrated that that "sense of general alarm" HAS faded, and been replaced with a definitive sense of resolute pragmatism. It makes it much more difficult to use fear as a tool.
Lest my lack of bipartisanship and/or the visual appeal (or lack thereof) and speaking styles of these two men stack the deck one way or the other, the text of Obama's speech can be read here; Cheney's speech is here. Cheney's speech is full of false strawman arguments such as when he says:
So we're left to draw one of two conclusions - and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come.
As Jon Stewart pointed out on The Daily Show last night - those are the only two choices? Really? There's no middle ground? One can't conclude that we must be vigilant, but pursue that vigilance using lawful and moral tactics?
He also contradicts himself:
Over on the left wing of the president's party, there appears to be little curiosity in finding out what was learned from the terrorists. The kind of answers they're after would be heard before a so-called "Truth Commission."
God forbid we learn the truth. I guess we can't handle the truth.
TPM put together a short video showing the contrasts between the two speeches:
As expected, the comparisons were covered by the usual political pundits. But Keith Olbermann put together one of his Special Comments about Cheney and his speech:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Filtering out Olbermann's bombast and high dudgeon, he makes some compelling points, including refuting Cheney's self-justification for torture and its results, and the shotgun demonizing of anyone and everyone to distract from his own crimes of commission and omission.
Ultimately, I believe that the two speeches were not only indicative of a sea change in America's zeitgeist, but it helped to lay bare the manipulative machinations on emotion of the former administration. I certainly hope that those in this country that are ambivalent will compare and contrast, and then draw the conclusion that they were played for dupes by professional con men for the previous 8 years, and vow to never let it happen again.
Let logic and freedom from fear rule!
