I was around but not really paying attention during the 1980s

[nadinbrzezinski]

but one thing is for sure, Reagan was a uniter, and a good speaker, in fact a great speaker

As much as we might hate him, or dislike him, he led a conservative revolution, and his speeches, the morning in America speeches, were at the center of it.

I certainly wasn't alive for JFK, but I have heard the speeches many a times, and he was also a hell of a speaker... and he gave hope to a generation.

Then there is FDR... another hell of a speaker...

They were all at the center of social revolutions and they all made proud of being an American

Reagan even made us feel good when all went to hell, while FDR told us that the only thing to fear is fear itself... a sentiment that I think is coming back.

Well, this "kid" who spoke tonight is drawing from this pool of talented speakers, as well as others... Lincoln was there, as well as Jefferson... and some of the morning in america theme, and Kennedy's the torch has been passed, and the only thing to be feared is fear itself.

What we watched tonight was history....

This is not about politics, but history. This is the first African American to earn the nomination.

Remember that.

He also has a vision.

And the time to fall in love is over, but this is about history. This is historic ok... and I know years from now, perhaps even after the Barack Obama era is over, I will be able to tell my nephews, who are too young... that I was there, and I watched this speech.... this HISTORIC speech.

Oh and HRC... she also made history... and for that she should be honored

SO enjoy the moment... and realize just how historic this is...

[BeatleBoot]

1. Reagan made us "feel good" ?

:wtf:

"Reagan even made us feel good when all went to hell"

You're right. You weren't paying attention in the 80's.

I don't want a president "to make me feel good".

Terrible analogy. If that was an attempt at triangulation, you lost.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. No, not triangulation, history

many people who were older and paying attention have come out and said that

The country was going to hell in a hand-basket, he made people feel good....

That was the basis for the 1984 campaign. Incidentally that is exactly what Junior first tried, and when that didn't work, he went for classic fear

[Gabi Hayes]

3. Reagan was NOT a great speaker. he could read a teleprompter fairly well.

but when he had to speak off the cuff, he was just as bad as Bush or McBush.

he was a lousy actor to boot, and the reason you think he was a great speaker is because the MEDIA bent down on their knees and told the world how great he was...the hero riding in on the horse to rescue us from the malaise of the Carter era, said malaise being the detritus of the eight Nixon/Ford years

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/On_Bended_Knee.html

We have been kinder to President Reagan than any President that I can remember since I've been at the Post."

So said Benjamin C. Bradlee, executive editor of The Washington Post, some four months before the November 1984 re-election of Ronald Reagan. Three years later, after the Iran-Contra affair had shattered Mr. Reagan's previous image of invincibility, I asked the legendary editor if he still stood by his statement. He did. Stressing that this was "all totally subconscious," Bradlee explained that when Ronald Reagan came to Washington in 1980, journalists at the Post sensed that "here comes a really true conservative.... And we are known-though I don't think justifiably-as the great liberals. So, we've got to really behave ourselves here. We've got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride, but they didn't use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon."

Even with all that eventually went wrong-the Iran-contra scandal, the stock-market crash, the seemingly endless series of criminal investigations of former top White House officials-the overall press coverage of the Reagan administration was extraordinarily positive. It is rare indeed for public officials to express satisfaction with their press coverage-in the words of NBC News White House correspondent Andrea Mitchell, "Politicians always say they want a fair press, when what they really want is a positive press"-but the men in charge of media and public relations in the Reagan White House were, almost unanimously, quite pleased with how their President was treated.

James Baker, White House chief of staff during the first term and Secretary of the Treasury during the second, told me, "There were days and times and events we might have some complaint about, on balance and generally speaking, I don't think we had anything to complain about in terms of first-term press coverage. "

David Gergen, former White House director of communications, confirmed shortly after leaving the administration in January 1984 that President Reagan and most of his advisers had come to believe that the basic goal of their approach to the news media-"to correct the imbalance of power with the press so that the White House will once again achieve a 'margin of safety' "- had finally been attained.

[Gabi Hayes]

4. btw, I was in DC during the 80s. the Post was my local paper,

and it sickened me to see the way they, and the rest of the media, played the emperor has no clothes game

the book linked goes into excruciating detail, with interviews of many of the main players, who admitted they just fell into the tank for Reagan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I am not talking of the OFF THE CUFF, but his speeches

and no it wasn't the media...

Blame the ever so popular poli sci, history and communications classes where you actually take all these speeches and dissect them

Not for the theme, but delivery.

For example, if I was going to dissect the other two speeches today... I'd give McInsane a D- (I am feeling generous) and not because of the theme, or the fact that he is a republican, but because his delivery SUCKED ASS...

I'd give HRC a B+. She had a couple good moments, one that was really good, the rest was a vanilla flavor delivery

And Obama would be a split between the A and the A-, there were a couple moments he actually seemed to stop

But his delivery was drawing from a long line of orators

I know many folks hate to see Reagan as a good orator (He was, and partly because he was trained for the role),

Now his politics I do abhor... but his SPEECH DELIVERY is studied, just as Kennedy's and FDRs... and for the same reason... they are that good.

And I can tell you right now, Obama will join them... since he is THAT GOOD

[bananas]

9. Bill Moyers did a show where he interviewed Leslie Stahl and others

and they talked about how the media was completely manipulated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Of course it was, but let me repeat this... I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MEDIA

I am talking of delivery, style, you know what you grade in a speech class, even if you DO NOT agree with the content of the speech.

And when it comes to DELIVERY, pace, and all that, he was GOOD...

[bananas]

17. You're ignoring the stage set and props

The stage was set before Reagan would appear, all the props in place.
Without that, he was just a grade-B movie actor rambling on a street corner with no one listening.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. stagecraft is part of it...

so no, I am not forgetting it

By the way, today you saw masterful stagecraft too

Care to guess by whom?

And you also saw it with both Bobby and Jack... as well as FDR

Hell, FDR would beat the tar feathers of the rest of these guys by the way in this category

Due to the polio they had to be extremely good at stagecraft

[YankmeCrankme]

49. Boy, the same can be said for all scheduled speeches.

Some get the theatrics right, some don't. Reagan definitely got those right, but if it wasn't for his ability to delivery it all would have meant nothing.

[Gabi Hayes]

14. sorry, but I disagree. he was a lousy actor, and he was merely using

the training that made him into said lousy actor.

I never bought any of his phony sincerity for a moment. he was ACTING the role of president, and lousy actors can't hide the fact that they're lousy actors, whether they're giving a prepared speech, or reading lines from a script. not too much difference

who cares if there have been studies of his skills? doesn't mean they know what those doing the studies know what they're talking about.

I know a phony when I see one, and his phoniness shone through, from the time I saw him in the movies, through Death Valley Days, as a rotten, hatemongering firebrand governor (bet they didn't use any of the California footage in their study).

the phoniness of his delivery far outweighed the modest actorly reading skills he brought to his speeches. I can't get past that, and everything else is irrelevant. he was ACTING like he was sincere, and it was painfully obvious.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Then we can disagree, no problem

I know his delivery (for cadence) is studied in speech classes... just as FDR and Kennedy's

Most teachers I know off stay away from the content for obvious reasons

After all, one exercise is for you to deliver a speech on a subject that you may, or may not agree on, and advocate for it.

Hell of a training actually...

Since it allows me to actually dissect speeches for OTHER aspects.

(And by the way I hate the messaging of his speeches, not to mention the policies)

[yellowdogintexas]

11. this is absolutely true.

they just sat back and gave him a free ride.

and impeached a President over a sexual dalliance

[Rosemary2205]

5. it worked because Iran was the boogie man.

A lot of blue collar people were losing jobs and the Pukes figured out a way to wave the flag enough to get scared people to shift the fear to the new boogieman.

Reagan, I think, was genuinely patriotic, so that helped.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Oh he also played the fear coin

absolutely, it was always under the surface,

and people who are afraid are easier to control

A lesson bush Jr learned very well

[mulsh]

8. Reagan scared the crap out of those who were paying attention

He was great as a pitch man for GE on "Death Valley Days." He was hardly a uniter. the only people he made "feel good" were those who were not paying attention. Just look up "proxy war" on any search engine & see.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Trust me, I KNOW what was done in CA, from the POV of some of those REFUGEES

but he did manage to make people feel good.

It was in the STYLE of delivery.

I know if one mentions reagan round these parts one better pull the lizard photo.

Now on the BRIGHT side, neither Junior, or Chenney will EVER be considered for an orator review, unless you want to use them for HOW NOT to deliver a speech... though grandpa should get the price for that one tonight!

This is what I am talking about

And now DELIVERY and ORATORY are at the center of social changes.

And what we heard tonight is definitely in that category (and I loved the content too)

[kcass1954]

29. He scared me - he was the reason I left the republican party.

Okay - I was probably not really a republican by then anyway, but he was what pushed me over the edge to register as a Dem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. And he pulled many others to his coalition

thankfully soon we will be able to study this period (1980-2008 hopefully) as HISTORY

[mulsh]

50. I wonder if you are confusing a very complicit media and spin

with Reagan's image.
He had very little opposition in the media. I remember never hearing anything negative about him from the MSM throughout his terms as pres. Only the most admiring and complimentary assessment was presented.

For instance in his first term as Governor there was a very serious recall movement started by republicans. Out sec of state managed to "lose" the petitions until shortly before the end of Reagan's 2nd term. The MSM never mentioned this drive at all. ever. There are many other examples of ronnie's charm and unifying attributes.

[Breeze54]

13. "Reagan was a uniter"? Are you on ACID?!?

:wtf:

He was the most despicable, sorry ass, excuse of a human being until W!!!

FUCK RAYGUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. No I am not on acid

he managed to pull the country together

He did it by manipulation and other devices, but he did manage to PULL OFF a social revolution

One that WE ARE ON THE THRESHOLD of finally confining to the dustbin of history... perhaps... they will not go quietly into that good night I fear.

You think you don't need some sort of national unity for a social revolution... I have a bridge to sell you and the Reagan Revolution (which Bush is the ultimate developer off) was exactly that.

Perhaps I should reach for the partisan hat... it would make all of you feel better, instead of that damn dusty historian hat!

And no I am not defending what he did either.

Just noting that HE DID PULL OFF something that we are still in the midst off!

[Hannah Bell]

20. he was a divider. you evidentally weren't there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Actually I was

the first four years not here, but some of it interviewing victims of his CA policy for a war crimes tribunal that will never happen

I could tell you some stories that will send you to the corner from the horror

The second four I was here... and I remember him...

I remember his speeches, and stagecraft

Impromptu he was terrible, but the proof is in the pudding

The conservative revolution that we should finally shake off, was started by him.

He didn't unite the poor... and minorities, but he did create the coalitions he needed to run this revolution.

I am talking as a historian, not somebody who admires him

See those war crimes that never took place. He belonged at the Hague...

Now saying that somebody can give a hell of a speech is not the same as admiring them. We have other great speakers across history, who were the bottom of humanity, if I want to be kind... can you say Hitler? What about Pinochet and Franco? They were GOOD, some may even say, GREAT speakers... that does not mean I agree with what they did.

[Hannah Bell]

26. compare to nixon, bush, clinton

clinton wins!

[Breeze54]

43. He did NOT pull the country together at ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's a despicable PIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's as bad as hte fuctard in the WH now, enjoying PUBLIC HOUSING!!!

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!!!!! :grr:

:nuke:

[Hannah Bell]

19. he made me feel bad. his so-called popularity was a miracle

of P.R.

Nothing changes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. If you were one of his targets, I fully understand

but he did create coalitions.... and the conservative revolution we should be shaking soon is fully his creation... and lee altwater as well

Again I am looking at this as a historian, and you know what makes me laugh about this?

If I posted this on FR... I'd be defending FDR and JFK as great speakers... and good at stagecraft

I'd be toss'ed too, but that is another story

I am not looking at this, at the moment, as a partisan, but this is an extremely narrow examination of Reagan as a speaker

It is funny since none of you have a problem wih FDR or JFK or Bobby being great speakers since their policies are your policies (and my policies), but as an objective analyst I can see the same bouts of brilliance in Reagan insofar as speech delivery (not content... though his morning in america was quite impressive as a theme, from the POV of only analyzing a speech and parts of speech and cadence and all that crap)

[devilgrrl]

22. Ronald Reagan didn't make us feel good. Nor did he speak well.

Were you comatose during the 80's?

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. No I wasn't and I find it funny that

nobody is getting this as an analysis of SPEECH delivery, CADENCE and ORATORY, not POLITICS

There is a DIFFERENCE

[Gabi Hayes]

32. I follow your point on the mechanical aspects of his speaking, but I still disagree

on the quality thereof

he was ALWAYS an actor, and there aren't many who thought he was any good at that; just look at the roles he was offered, especially as his career declined

his best role was as president, and all the mechanical oratory 'skills' he brought to bear were a matter of groupthink, as far as I'm concerned.

his insincerity (lousy acting) outshone his practiced pacing, cadence, delivery, however you choose to deconstruct his delivery. his performances as a speechmaker reminded me of watching a movie and realizing that the actor I watched was very transparently 'acting,' and not disappearing into his role.

like comparing the acting skills of Tom Cruise to those of a younger Robert DeNiro.

he just didn't convince me for a moment. he was better than any other republican president that I've ever seen, but look who the comparisons are.
sorta like saying horseshit smells better than pigshit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. Hmm he developed his political delivery

as governor of California... and by the time he got the presidency he was long gone as a B actor

I don't disagree that he was a lousy actor

And I still remember my speech prof, she was to the left of K. Marx, telling us... don't listen for content but for cadence

By the way, tonight with grandpa I had to do that... and it was slightly better than dimson, since dimson reminds me of nails on board!

I am positive Obama listened to many a tape of good orators... to learn how to do it... I am positive of that

And I am willing to bet the people I mentioned in the OP were in his list, as well as many others that are not part of a shared national experience

[devilgrrl]

35. I'm sorry that I jumped on you for that.

:-(

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. No problem...

I know Reagan is almost radioactive....

I also tend to wear my politics far closer to the vest (even if they have been radicalized far to the left), when looking at historical figures and trying to understand WHY they managed to do something.

Speech is a powerful tool and I do thank the gods McInsane is such a poor speaker

Of course I have to remind myself that Dimson is also a poor speaker and they managed to make it close enough to steal them twice

[Echo In Light]

48. Agreed, Devilgrrl. I became politically aware during the 80s via those crooks, Iran/Contra, etc

The current batch of fascists took a page from their playbook ... an incremental greasing of the skids for future administrations, one could say.

[MiniMe]

23. Reagan was an Actor, he acted the role of President very well

You would expect an actor to be able to deliver a speech. Personally, I always felt like he was talking down to me like I wasn't capable of understanding anything. He didn't have a dream of anything, and I think he is probably spinning in his grave at what we have in the WH now.

Yes, JFK was a good speaker. So was Bill Clinton (before he campaigned for Hillary).

Johnson - No, Nixon - No, Carter - No, Poppy Bush - No, and DimSon - No. Out of this group, Reagan would be the best, but it is no camparison to JFK or Bill when he was President.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Exactly, he did play his role well

as to talking down to you, that is a characteristic of conservative speech givers.

Look at them, and examine them... hell McCain was doing it today, though not well.

Now Reagan is studied for his cadence...

And of modern speakers, yes Clinton was good... I believe Obama is in another category from the speeches I've heard and analyzed

THere are your vanilla flavor orators, Nixon, Carter, Poppy.... Hillary tonight... there are your terrible speakers, Dimson and McCain was terrible tonight

And then there are extraordinary people... and they don't come often

Obama is one of them

[question everything]

28. A major difference; I am pretty sure that FDR and JFK wrote their own

speeches while Reagan's "excellent" speeches were written by Peggy Noonan.

I remember driving home from work listening to Reagan eulogizing the Challenger astronauts and it brought tears to my eyes while, at the same time, I reminded myself that these were not his words.

I suspect that Obama (and Clinton) write their own.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. JFK is on the cusp, he wrote some, some where written by

Shlessinger

FDR wrote his own

And I doubt Obama and Clinton are writing their speeches.

It is not part of the modern political system

And yes I do remember the Challenger eulogy... I also remember the Marines in Lebanon

Those where tear jerkers!

Again, for the rest, we are talking delivery here, not political agreement

[shanti]

30. yes, he was a good speaker

he was a freaking actor!

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Thank you

whatever the reason he was

And not all actors are good speakers either

[shanti]

38. true

:hi: that always bothered me about raygun, the fact that he was an actor. he suckered a lot of people tho.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Yep, but we are FORTUNATELY on the cusp of something new

so we can start trying to see WHY he suckered so many people

[RandomKoolzip]

37. Reagan sucked.

I was five when he won the presidency and even as a child I had a visceral reaction to his image on TV. Something about him creeped me the fuck out.

He NEVER made me "feel good." He made me feel scared. All through my childhood, I had nightmares and daytime visions of nuclear war. I had to go to therapy when I was seven because of the goddamned news every night. Fuck Reagan and his legacy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. You were far more sensitive to the undercurrent of fear

that bush has also used.

Some of his speeches had a Messianic undercurrent to them.

[opihimoimoi]

42. I was around to actually shake JFK's hand when as a Senator, visited Hawaii

That said...

Reagan was an actor who read lines others wrote....he was a puppet...spent us into Trillions of Nat debt....

He was dif not a great speaker...IMHO.....

They almost put him on Mt Rushmore but didn't...Thank the Goddess for that.

[NCDem60]

44. Obama has a good

chance. After all it is the Black Hills of South Dakota. :)


"They almost put him on Mt Rushmore but didn't...Thank the Goddess for that."

[opihimoimoi]

45. Clever....very clever.....(smile)

Whad a pun...lol

[Golden Raisin]

46. I was around, aware and wide awake. Truman

was President when I was born. Reagan was a fucking nightmare and I hope he's burning in some pit of Hell (I have vivid memories of when the mental hospitals in New York were closed by Reagan's "policies" and mentally ill and emotionally unstable people were literally thrown out to helplessly wander the streets.) Dawn in America. More like Nightmare in America. His acting experience, second class, B-movie that it was, enabled him to play the role of folksy, "regular" guy, and later the avuncular or grandfatherly, benevolent presidential figurehead that so many stupid Americans fell for. His speaking abilities were NOT of the highest caliber but they WERE polished/honed in both Hollywood and as a commercial spokesperson on radio and early TV and served him very well when he went into politics. He could read cue cards or a teleprompter well enough. Off the cuff he was bad. Take a look at JFK's interchanges and extremely witty repartee at his press conferences for someone who was truly nimble on his feet. Reagan's policies and administration, along with Nixon's, were the foundation and spiritual grandfathers of the disastrous nightmare of the last 7 years of Bush/Cheney.

[Greyhound]

47. Exactly so. Raygun was always barely good enough, just competent enough,

the very poster-boy for lowered standards.
:thumbsup:

[Blue_Tires]

51. Reagan had a good speechwriter/delivery

Bill Clinton was a GREAT speaker

[Locrian]

52. you have to watch

You have to watch "Century of the Self" (google it, it's on Google video). Specifically the 4th part to understand the era and WHY raygun did indeed appeal to a lot of people.

It was a ME generation type thing, feel good, consumerism type campaign. It was calculated, well thoughout, and it worked. Yeah it fucked us, but watch the video to understand the dynamics behind it.

[TreasonousBastard]

53. I gotcher back here, sorta, (for whatever that's worth) and...

hear you that Reagan was the Great Communicator and did actually bring much of the country together.

Problem is that although he brought lots of people together and gave them a vision of the country, he estranged many of us even further than Nixon had. He personalized and cut off the "Left" as essentially bad people, rather than people with a legitimate point of view, and that polarization remains today.

Until Shrub came along, I couldn't imagine a worse President than Reagan, but even I got caught up in the speechifyin' he'd do. All smoke, mirrors, and prime grade bullshit, but his superb speechwriters and years of bullshitting before the mikes and cameras gave him a perfect delivery. Lethal soundbites and bon mots, too. Who can forget "There you go again"? Or his anecdotes, almost all fictional?

So, Reagan didn't inspire us on the left who paid attention, but he sure had an impact on the other three quarters of the country. Too bad he ended up being a useless shit.

I was alive for JFK and nobody around then can forget that day he called himself a jelly donut or "Ask not what your country can do for you..." JFK sure seemed like the perfect transition between two terrible wars and the looming Cold War.

Problem with JFK was that although he gave us vision up the ass, he also came within minutes of starting a nuclear was with the Soviets as his crowning achievment. That can be a problem with magical speakers-- they talk the talk but judgment can be a bit lax. (Think of what could have happened if William Jennings Bryan, one of our greatest and most inspiring speakers, had won the Presidency)

So, yes, we are watching history being made, and looking forward to the rebirth of the nation after 8 dark years, but the tough part of democracy is making sure these people can do more than talk.

[blindpig]

54. Boy howdy,

are you in for a disappointment.

It is indeed a good thing that a Black man has attained the place that Obama has in a nation so sullied by racism. That aspect is revolutionary, but that's the end of it. The comparison with Raygun is apt, an empty suit who can give a speech and fully supports the imperial/capitalist agenda.

Hope springs eternal, but it is a curse.