You probably heard the joke -- Robert Tychkowski of the Edmonton Sun might have been the first to make it on the record -- about why it took until February for the Stanley Cup champions to get their trip to the White House: George W. Bush has never been quick at responding to Hurricanes. Man oh man, though, actually watching this is a special kind of painful-funny for anyone with a heart and/or a brain. Here's a President of the United States, struggling to mouth generalities -- which were probably written for him -- about something as mundane as a pro hockey team. Thing is, no one really bats an eye at this much anymore, since we no longer expect anything from political leaders, least of all being able to read a prepared speech that goes about as deep as a bad high school valedictorian speech.
Paraphrasing something George Costanza once said on Seinfeld, we've become hopeless. But hey, it's not like we expect Bush or Stephen Harper up here in Canada to have answers for climate change and Iraq either. That's Jon Stewart or Rick Mercer's job, right?
It isn't left-wing or right-wing to get mad about this -- because left-wingers haven't figured out how to deliver dumbass rhetoric, but give them time, they'll figure it out soon enough.
Of course, the real major-league asshole (to borrow Bush's term) here is someone born in North America after 1975 whose gold standard for political speech isn't Ronald Wilson Reagan. Shame on those who haven't given in to the no-memory movement, where it's verboten to actually have a consciousness about anything that happened before you hit puberty. It just happens that there's a book on the shelf, former baseball players' union executive director's Marvin Miller's memoir A Whole Different Ball Game. As a trade unionist, Miller's politics speaks for itself, but here's his contrast between representing the United Steelworkers at the John F. Kennedy White House in the early 1960s, where JFK "spoke very intelligently about some of the current labor issues being discussed in academic circles" and representing ballplayers at Reagan's White House:
"...when Reagan pulled out his three-by-five index cards, I thought, 'Wow, I guess he's going to get into the gut of this.' Wrong! He started reading a prepared welcoming statement that a ten-year-old could have mouthed off the top of his head. All I could do was recall ... how impressed I had been with the intelligence and preparation of the extremely well informed John F. Kennedy. What a contract to this second-rate actor ... who couldn't shoo a cow from the middle of the road without cue cards. 'So,' I thought, 'this is what the country has come to.' Not quite, but it was the direction in which it was moving."Well, in the words of a million kids riding in the backseats of station wagons, Are we there yet? And yes, Bush says "two tramps" instead of "true champs" near the end.
That's all for now. Send your thoughts to neatesager@yahoo.ca.
Posts
15 comments:
Ah, Sager - the typical politico hack who looks up to leaders because as his of intelligence (that Jon Stewart is just so witty!) who are able to get into the various nooks and nuance of the topics du jour. John Kerry, Bill Clinton, JFK...all of these guys - brilliant, charming conversationalists who can talk you through the not only through a fast track trade authority bill, but also how to throw a curve ball. And not to mention, they sure can impress the ladies with all that talk, too, no? All that is well and good - except for the fact...these men and all their intelligence stand for nothing except what those polls tell 'em to do. Bag on Reagan and Bush for all you want, but these two men make decisions, stand by them and never waiver - even they are the decisions you don't agree with. So, in that vein, I don't care if my President knows "two tramps" from "true champs"...but I do care if he's a man of character and resolve. For most liberals, symbolism rules - oh, he sounds so smart and knows so much - therefore he must be good...when in actuality, it's the content of a man's character that matters most (MLK, I believe), especially in the decision making arena. And both of those men were - regardless of their ability to hail sports teams for their title winning abilities, men of great character. I daresay that intelligence and character and not inexorably linked...memorably shown by the exploits of our brilliant, but ultimately flawed, 42nd president.
DC, you made me tear up a little there, just picturing GWB and Reagan standing out in the sunlight, staring off into the distance with a glint in their eye. Never wavering, never faltering, full of resolve. A recovering alcoholic and a man who called a monkey his co-star, leading and living with dignity.
I'm a little confused about this, though:
"because as his of intelligence"
I don't know what it means, but I'm sure you'll stand behind it, because you've got character and morals, dammit.
Tom Paine reincarnate, sir.
Thanks, mantooth (great handle, by the way). I'm sure Tom Paine also knew the difference between "waiver" and "waver" as well -- that would have helped Throwback's cause if he was so bent on proving the superiority of his worldview.
Just for the record, I would no sooner take a cue from entertainers such as Mercer or Stewart than any politician.
Sorry we're not all from Canada. I expected this to be some sort of trainwreck because i followed a blog link to this video. But i didn't see that at all. I thought Bush was pretty charming. I didn't really see any gaffes at all. What did I miss?
Don't let your hatred for Bush or America or both blind yourself to everything he does.
I'm not a W fan, but there's nothing to quarrel with here. He's real, he's genuine, he's a guy. Good for him.
Yeah, right, your anti-Bush rant isn't a "right wing" or a "left wing" thing. You can't even be honest about your own biases. That does a little to damage your credibility.
Two things:
(1) You can criticize a lot of President Bush, but you can't criticize his knowledge as a sports fan. As in "professional sports". When the championship baseball teams comes to White House, I can guarantee you Bush doesn't need notes. But then again, baseball is a major league sport that people south of Sakatchewan care about. We're talking hockey here. Likewise, I don't care if Bush is up to speed about the particularities of ice dancing when that "sports" championship comes to White House.
(2) In the U.S., we don't give a flying fig what an ignorant Canadian thinks about our choice of leaders. And before you squeal like the over-stuffed pig you are, please note that I'm sure you don't give a flying fig about what an American thinks about Canada's choice of prime ministers. And that's only fair.
Bush acquitted himself well on this. It's got nothing to do with what you think of any of his policies. It just means he did an OK job yukking it up with a minor sports league champion.
Watching the video, I think the President did stumble thru those prepared remarks. He stumbles thru just about all prepared remarks. So what. It says nothing about his intelligence, just his ability to read prepared statements and MC ceremonial duties.
Ditto Ronald Reagan. I'll take a leader of vision and character over one of carefully crafted triangulation and nuance any day.
Under the guise of being irreverant, your true colors still show, Mr. Sager.
I dont understand the point about Reagan not being the gold standard for political speech. He perfected the photo-op and mass-media communication that eveyone since has used. Who cares if he doesnt know the minutae of every issue?
TALK ABOUT BLOWING A LAYUP, YOU MANAGED TO BE A BIGGER IDIOT THAN BUSH IN SAYING AS MUCH ABOUT HIM. I DIDN'T THINK IT POSSIBLE.
THIS READS LIKE A BAD TERM PAPER FROM THAT ONE GUY IN CLASS, YOU KNOW THE TYPE: BOTH ACTED AND BELIEVED HE WAS SMARTER THAN EVERYONE. PAID NO ACTUAL ATTENTION AT ANY POINT. PLACED HEAVY EMPHASIS ON OBSEQUIOUS MOCKERY AND THEFT OF ORIGINAL CONCEPT FOR PERSONAL ATTRIBUTION WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IN A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO EARN CREDIT PULLS AN ALL-NIGHTER, SHOWS UP LOOKING LIKE A MORE DELIRIOUS VERSION OF CHRIS FARLEY ON A THREE DAY BENDER. FAILS MISERABLY. RAGES VOCIFEROUSLY TO FRIENDS ABOUT HOW HE GOT 'SCREWED' BY THE PROF. PRETENDS TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
BUSH IS A FIRST CLASS IDIOT, JUST LIKE YOU, N.S.
Wow, you'd think no one ever mocked Bush's speech before!
I like the part in these comments where "ignorant Canadians" was used by somebody defending Bush's speech because everybody knows that the neo-conservatives who still love Bush are the most open-minded people of the 21st century!
YOUR MISSING THE POINT: YOU'RE BEATING A DEAD HORSE, AND NOT VERY WELL.
BUSH IS NEITHER A BELOVED OR DEFENSIBLE PRESIDENT; HE'S CLEARLY A BUMBLING IDIOT. BUT THIS PARTICULAR PERFORMACE WAS A FAR CRY FROM AWFUL; DEFINITELY NOT HIGH GROUND FROM WHICH TO STAGE A MOCKERY.
THEN THE POST THAT YOU WROTE FELT LIKE OATMEAL; A MEANDERING SLOP OF NON SEQUITUR TRIPE AND POLITICAL POP ATTRIBUTION.
ALLOW ME TO RE-WRITE YOUR ENTIRE POST IN FOUR SENTENCES:
GEORGE IS AN IDIOT. SEINFELD. DAILY SHOW. POLITICAL SPEECH IS UNORIGINAL.
ALRIGHTY THEN.
Well, you would not have commented if what was written hadn't struck a nerve. Game set match Sager, once again.
Hey anonymous,
Sager's point of view is far, far more intelligent than the blubbering, mean-spirited verbal diarrhea that comes out of the few, the proud, the ignorant that still support George W. Bush. He deserves everything he gets.
Even most Republicans are wise to the fact Bush has seriously fucked up the U.S. government's finances with a ill-fated, epoch-defining war in Iraq that will do nothing more than inspire more hatred of America in the world.
If you actually think it is a virtue to call Bush a man of character, you and I have very, very different ideas on what character actually is. Your version has more in common with
You know what probably really bothers Sager in all this? It's not the left or right thing at all. It's the same old story with Bush: the rabidly anti-intellectual, "playing the fool" act he does all the time to appease a section of the electorate that believes God created the world in seven days, evolution is wrong and government should stay the hell out of an average American's ability to buy an SUV, designer fashion and other useless crap (hey, if government's too smart, that's bad apparently).
I actually don't think Bush is stupid. I think he's smart enough to know how powerful language still is in this really fucked-up media culture of ours, and he plays with language (or, at least, his advisors do) to make his speeches sound as if he was talking to a nation of spoiled, moronic children. Sager's point is about how political speeches in general with American politicos (and this goes for Clinton too, he may have been smart but he was sharp enough to know how much Americans hate people with brains in office, apparently) has gone down in quality.
Bush is merely following the trend, which either makes him dangerous enough to continue down this road of poorer and poorer dialogue from elected officials (after all, how else do we relate to politicos, through written bills?) and thus screwing up the electorate's relationship with government further, or he's cowardly enough to hide behind cheap, meaningless sentiment ("defending our freedom!") or send those poor folks off to Iraq toe be slaughtered to feed the American war machine (and line the profits of various third-party military contractors, i.e. Haliburton). Either way, the sooner he's gone, the better.
Oh, the other anonymous guy who called Sager an overstuffed pig and mocks hockey as a "minor-league sport?" Don't worry man, we know that by attacking Sager personally, you don't actually have anything to counter his arguments.
forgot something... anonymous's version of character has more to do with the notion of never actually having doubt, which is what really scares a lot of us around the world. Why do so many Americans think we should respect your country simply because you judge steadfast, unyielding government policy as a virtue? That doesn't sound like democracy at all. Then again, America's never really been a true democracy, has it?
Post a Comment