Posted on 01/23/2005 1:22:43 AM PST by paudio
Bush's second inaugural speech was magnificent rhetoric of the sort that White House wordsmiths love to write but presidents are usually reluctant to recite. Being eloquent is easiest when you're being emphatic, and this speech was chock-full of certitudes: Tyranny produces terrorism; Americans can only be secure when we have replaced dictatorships with democracies throughout the world; we must use our "considerable influence" to help overturn oppressive regimes; and (implicitly) those who doubt this believe that "dissidents prefer their chains." Any speechwriters worth their dog-eared memoirs by Theodore Sorensen and Peggy Noonan would want to write this speech, but no one could have done it better than Michael Gerson. Bearing witness to democracy's self-evident truths is the oldest and noblest strain in American oratory, but Gerson can make it sound fresh, as when Bush declared, "Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country."
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
"Any speechwriters worth their dog-eared memoirs by Theodore Sorensen and Peggy Noonan would want to write this speech, but no one could have done it better than Michael Gerson."
Insight by a speechwriter.
The speach was a mess, Michael Gerson had a mild heart attack while writing it and his team of 'speach writers' came up with a campaign speach after they won.
Even Bush senior is coming out and saying there are no foreign policy implications that can be read into it.
William F Buckley was scratching his head about what it all meant.
In Inaugural Speach should be a simple "Thank you for your support", leave foreign policy for another day and more sober minds.
I liked it..It invoked the idealism common to America about liberty, long term aspirations of freedom for our fellow man.
We are more secure in our own nation when others are free from tyranny..It is a goal for generations to come..Idealistic and realistic.
Why yes its all about "style".......and for the left - only style.
The problem with the speech was it was too much focused on international policy and not enough on his vision for America. I really did not see the crowd get overly excited about anything Bush said. I like Bush, but he has never given a speech that really lifts you up and gets you proud to be an American and optimistic about the future like Ronald Reagan could.
Pretty knowledgeable for a guy that can't even spell "speech".
My sentiments exactly! I thought that it was a great speech. But, then who am I? Just another dumb West Texan.
I guess you missed his speech before the Congress on 9/20/01 then? ("This is our mission and our moment...")
re post 3: what's not to understand? "If you stand for liberty, we'll stand with you". Simple, concise, whatever it takes.
You're an idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.