Kerryisms
Slate has a new regular feature called Kerryisms which will take John Kerry to task for his “caveats and pointless embellishments” (I guess they’re just feeling a little guilty for the last four years of Bushisms or something). Here’s their first installment :
“Let me just say very quickly that the horrifying abuse of Iraqi prisoners, which the world has now seen, is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable. And the response of the administration, certainly the Pentagon, has been slow and inappropriate. I believe the president needs to guarantee that the world is going to have an explanation. What happened there has done a disservice to all of our troops who serve with great valor and greater courage and, I think, with distinction. And it also undermines America’s own efforts in the region. It has the potential of putting our troops, the rest of them, in further jeopardy. It can increase acts of terror against America and Americans. And it undermines the overall effort of the United States in the region. So I think it is important to have an understanding of this as rapidly as possible and to make that explanation and any other appropriate comments to the world.”?Los Angeles, May 5, 2004
Pretty funny, huh? Yeah, I don’t think it’s that funny either. To help explain why we should be laughing, there’s an “English version” which has been obsessively picked apart. Of course, if you have to explain why something is funny, it probably isn’t that funny to begin with.
By contrast, here’s the most recent Bushism :
“This has been tough weeks in that country.”?Washington, D.C., April 13, 2004
It’s telling that there isn’t an “English version” included with the Bushisms. I guess the editors at Slate think it’s safe to assume that anyone reading the column is more intelligent than the man they’re quoting.
Personally I think having a President that doesn’t understand the most basic aspects of English grammar is much funnier (and scarier) than one that talks too much. That’s the choice we’ve got this November : The egghead or the fool. Or, to put this in “Must See TV” terms, we’ve got a choice between making Frasier or Joey our next president.
10 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I like both Bushisms and Kerryism but don’t think that either is very funny. One thing that my mentor at OCU, Terry Phelps, tried to drill into my head was that most people have too much fat in their writing. We add unnecessary flowery phrases (I still haven’t shaken that habit) that overinflate our statements. Kerry does that in this quote, which is ironic because he opens with “Let me just say very quickly…”
Comment by E-Rock — May 19, 2004 @ 9:23 am
that’s a really apt, but scarry “must see tv” analogy. unfortunately i think that most or these amerkunn idiots would take joey over frasier.
i’m so glad friends is finally dead!
Comment by tom — May 19, 2004 @ 9:32 am
I agree but it seems odd to mock Kerry’s pretention when Bush’s own speech isn’t literate enough to over-inflate in the first place. It’s like comparing the piano playing of someone guilty of Liberace-style noodling to that of a little kid who’s slowly plucking out the notes to “Chopsticks”.
Comment by greg — May 19, 2004 @ 9:33 am
I think Saletan’s point would be that Kerry is overembellishing “Chopsticks.”
Off-topic: While at my cousin’s college graduation (he took a long time off), I saw a BTW yearbook that had a freshman picture of you in it. You’re listed as “Gregg Saunders”
Comment by Earnest — May 19, 2004 @ 10:07 am
Awww…I think Friends kinda gets a bad rap. It’s not great entertainment by any means, but it was probably one of the best sitcoms on TV. I’d much rather watch Friends than some shit like “According to Jim”, “Two And A Half Men”, “Just Shoot Me”, “Will And Grace”, “Eight Simple Rules…” etc. Granted, it was more of a “soapcom” (as dubbed by Slate) than it should have been, they had some pretty well-written takes on themes that have been beaten to death over the last 50 years of television comedy. While I’d be hard pressed to include Friends with sitcom classics like “The Dick Van Dyke Show” or “Seinfeld”, I think it’s definitely a step above the average (ie. unbearably bad) [workplace / hangout / family] ensemble comedy.
Comment by greg — May 19, 2004 @ 10:13 am
First of all, people who spell Greg with an extra “g” suck.
The only yearbook picture of myself that I like is in my senior yearbook, where I’m pictured with the Russian club giving a thumbs up while wearing a shirt with the name “Jerome” on it. It was especially good considering that (a) it’s the only picture of me in the book and (b) I wasn’t a member of the Russian club. If I’m ever in a plane crash or something and they’re looking for a picture of me to put in the newspaper, I hope they track that one down.
Comment by greg — May 19, 2004 @ 10:19 am
I’ll try and make sure that’s how it happens. I still know a few people at the Tulsa World. In the mean time, I kind of hope nobody can come up with a picture of me to send to the World if something awful happens to me, because then they’ll have to use their only file photo of me, Greg’s favorite. Hell, it’s my favorite too.
Comment by Brianotron — May 19, 2004 @ 11:45 am
Another question is, how does it affect their speech that they are extemporizing in public, versus reading from a text? How does it affect them that they are answering questions they’re comfortable answering?
Kerry exhibits a tendency I’ve noticed in my own speech from time to time, which is that he talks a lot of impressive-sounding nothing while he’s trying to work out his actual answer in his head, then he says that. Long-winded, maybe, but at least he makes sense.
Meanwhile, Bush sounds like an idiot whether he’s reading, quoting, speaking off the cuff, etc. The only time I’ve ever found him remotely compelling was in that clip that surfaced of him drinking at his friend’s wedding (and obviously drunk, years after he’d ‘given up alcohol for Christ’), and he was delivering an impromptu roast in a casual way; that was the first time I ever seriously considered that he’s not a complete chowderhead. Unfortunately, he’s long since lost my sympathies, which were minimal to begin with.
Comment by jwer — May 20, 2004 @ 5:00 am
That the President has lost your sympathies is what allows you to always see him as a dolt. I can’t praise the fact that Kerry meanders while trying to figure out what to say. After all, impressive-sounding nothing is still nothing, and “nothing” is useless… You can identify with Kerry because your speech patterns are similar; now, can you see why so many Americans identify with the President?
I don’t like Bill Clinton, but his greatest strength was his public speaking. Bill Clinton is an amazing speaker. As President his speeches were straightforward, and he didn’t embellish much (well, at least when he wasn’t dissembling). President Bush sounds like the people by default; President Clinton sounded like the people by design. Kerry should take notes.
Comment by E-Rock — May 20, 2004 @ 10:28 am
Oh yeah, don’t get me wrong, I’d vastly prefer to listen to Clinton speak, even with that carefully cultivated “Oxford Rube” accent… I was and am quite bitter that a man that brilliant and talented chose to screw everything EVERYTHING up with his eight years; he could’ve actually BEEN Josiah Bartlett, but noooooo…
I find Kerry fairly dull, in fact, I wasn’t trying to defend his presence, just contrast him to Bush, and say I recognized what his thought process was.
And despite my extreme dislike of Bush, I would be capable of giving him credit, if he ever deserved any. Wandering lost and confused through your job, hoping no one will figure out that you have no idea how to perform it is never admirable, and so much less so when you’re supposed to be the President of the United States…
Comment by jwer — May 21, 2004 @ 4:32 am