And the debate winner is... Lemony Snicket

[mayor]

Fantastic piece I found... emphasis mine...

------------------

I heard three men speak this week with apparent passion about subjects of great interest. Each of them was trying to be accepted as honest and clear in his speech. Two of them are obvious: George Bush and John Kerry, who took part in the first Presidential Debate of 2004 in Miami on Thursday. Almost all of you either saw the debate, read the transcripts afterward, or saw coverage of it. But to my view, the most honest, the most effective speaker, was the third man, Lemony Snicket, who appeared at a book signing at a Barnes and Noble north of Atlanta on Monday night.

The store was packed. Upwards of 2,000 adults and children were there for the signing, and they stayed open well past midnight, which was when we reached the head of the line. But since most of you have never had the privilege of hearing Lemony Snicket speak, here’s a description.

Snicket is his pen name; Daniel Handler is the writer of “A Series of Unfortunate Events,” a 13-volume series about the efforts of the evil Count Olaf to get his hands on the “enormous fortune” of the Baudelaire orphans, Violet, Klaus, and Sunny. The books are funny, serious, outrageous, educational, and exceptionally well written.

All successful children’s books are written in a similar style. They use plain English, and short, declarative sentences. In short, they follow the rules for good writing laid down by William Strunk and E.B. White in The Elements of Style. The very best of children’s books are written for two audiences at once. They entertain children, but they also offer details and discussions which are over the heads of the children and are entertaining for adults as well.

Consider Lewis Carroll and Alice in Wonderland. Consider A.A. Milne and Now We Are Six. Consider classic Bugs Bunny cartoons like “The Rabbit of Seville.” Add to that select list, which includes Dr. Seuss and Charles Schultz, the name of Lemony Snicket (Daniel Handler). I’ll give just one example of the writing of this gentleman from the back cover of The Grim Grotto, book 11.

“Unless you are a slug, a sea anemone, or mildew, you probably prefer not to be damp. You might also prefer not to read this book, in which the Baudelaire siblings encounter an unpleasant amount of dampness as they descend into the depths of despair, underwater.

“In fact, the horrors they encounter are too numerous to list, and you wouldn’t want me even to mention the worst of it, which includes mushrooms, a desperate search for something lost, a mechanical monster, a distressing message from a lost friend, and tap dancing.”

Self deprecation is a delicate art for writers and speakers. Like a surgeon’s scalpel, it should either be used with absolute skill, or not at all. Recall that Presidents Kennedy and Reagan had that skill. It enhanced their presidencies with the public and with the press.

The last thing about Snicket’s integrity showed in the fact that six hours into his book signing, he was still speaking directly and personally to every child who approached his desk. And he was also still listening to what they said, and responding individually. It was a very impressive achievement. And it was why I conclude that this week, he spoke of danger, courage, success – of love, hate, and friendship – of the past, present and future – better than the other two gentlemen who dealt with similar subjects on Thursday evening.

But now we turn to the other two men to decide which of them was the runner-up to Snicket in the honest-and-candid sweepstakes.

Concerning the Presidential Debate on foreign policy in Miami on Thursday night, it is important to keep in mind what this was not. This was not an Oxford-style debate, graded on technical points. I know what those are; I took part in debates like that at Yale, with John Kerry. But the “judges” in this debate are not professors or experts. They are the American people, determining our own safety and security.

Were this a purely technical debate, graded on technical points, the winner by a narrow margin would have been John Kerry. In every answer to every opportunity he was overwhelmingly factual. Of course, some of his facts were not true, and many of them were irrelevant to the question asked. But he certainly was FACTUAL.

But the biggest question on the table is: Which of these two men can be best relied on to lead the United States in a time of war? That’s not a question to be decided by which candidate would do better on Jeopardy!, assuming that Ken Jennings gives up his stranglehold on the winner’s spot.

Before addressing that overwhelming question, I’ll offer just four quotes from the candidates. These are not the hot-button ones likely to be featured on the morning news shows. But they are the ones that illustrate how this debate went, and who will be the winner in the view of the American people, not the experts and the talking heads.

In answer to two different questions, John Kerry made these statements:

Kerry: “Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved. And I am.”

Kerry: “I’ve never wilted in my life. I’ve never wavered in my life.”

In answer to two different questions, George Bush said:

Bush said it was essential in world relations that other nations see us as “speaking clearly and doing what we say .... Look at Libya. It was a threat. It is now peaceful.”

Bush: “The only thing consistent about my opponent is his inconsistency.”

Presidents from George Washington on have said in words and have demonstrated in their actions that consistency is essential in leadership. Friends must be able to rely on us. Enemies must know to fear us. Inconsistency sabotages both of those basic tasks in international relations.

As a friend of mine said, moments after the debate was over, “If you knew nothing about John Kerry prior to tonight, you would have thought he was clear about what he knew and what he intended.” That is absolutely right. It’s only by comparing Kerry today with Kerry yesterday and Kerry a year ago that his inconsistencies are revealed.

The other factor is personal. Which candidate seems to have blood in his veins rather than ice water? Which one seems to have more of a personal understanding and commitment to the leadership needs of the nation?

[b]George Bush was a less able debater from a technical standpoint. He was not as fast with his facts, nor as smooth in his presentation. But that was known and expected in advance. Where the debate was won was in who George Bush is, not how polished he seems in a public debate. In my judgment, George Bush demonstrated that he is better able to bear in the future the tremendous burdens of the Presidency of our nation at war. [b]

Compared to that, John Kerry came across second best. He was lecturing, not communicating. He was claiming leadership because he was/is a “smart man.” The greatest leaders in American history were not the “smartest” men. And the ones who failed as leaders were not the “dumbest” men. Consider the qualities that separate a George Washington from a Martin van Buren. An Abraham Lincoln from a Grover Cleveland. A Harry Truman from a Chester Arthur.

No one can be a true leader unless he or she has core values that match America’s needs, and the strength to stay on course with those values.

So, as I said at the beginning, the most effective communicator with the American people this week was Lemony Snicket. But second to his skill and candor was the presentation of George Bush in Miami. Coming in third was the cold and calculating John Kerry. The one point I will concede to Kerry’s handlers is that they broke him of the habit of pointing at people like Ichabod Crane, with his bony finger of doom as he recounted American “failures.”

I’ve written this before listening to the comments of the talking heads and the spinmeisters. The instant analyses the night of such a debate often lack the perspective to make a good judgment. Such analyses the following morning are better, but still not good. Too many of these people live inside the Washington Beltway (or New York, or other political cocoons), and lack any working understanding of the real Americans who live outside the Beltway, and away from both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

My opinion only matters if I’m right about this conclusion: I think over the next two days that a sufficient number of Americans will make their choice for President so this election is finally over. As always, the first debate has the largest audience. And the press has noted that a very high proportion of the people are committed now to their choice for President.

I believe that within two days enough of the few undecided Americans will conclude that George Bush should serve another four years, and that this conclusion will appear in all the national and state polls. And lastly, I believe that set of opinions will hold firm from now until the election on 2 November. Facts on the ground will prove me right or wrong.

---

About the Author: John Armor is a civil rights attorney who lives in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina.

[mrbowler]

"My opinion only matters if I’m right about this conclusion: I think over the next two days that a sufficient number of Americans will make their choice for President"


Maybe we will need to wait another day

[Only registered and activated users can see links. Either login above or Register Now]