The Not-So-Great Communicators
As I see Troy has already mentioned below, our very own Peter Robinson has a column in today's Wall Street Journal (paywall) in which he assigns a grade to each Republican presidential candidate based on their public speaking performances. Peter lays out three dimensions by which he evaluates the effectiveness of each communicator: 1. Does anybody really want to listen to this person? 2. Why is that candidate wagging his finger at us? and 3. Does the candidate demonstrate that he is equal to the moment?
On the first measure, that is—how enjoyable is each candidate to listen to?—Peter assigns pretty harsh grades to the entire field (although graded on a curve, he thinks that Gingrich gets an A-, while the others earn a B+).
Mr. Romney? Bland. Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul? Either forgettable or grating. Only Mr. Gingrich commands listeners' attention, yet his is the command of the factory whistle. You don't enjoy Mr. Gingrich, exactly. You just can't not listen to him.
Mr. Gingrich gets a C, each of the others, a D.
On the second measure—how well does the candidate relate to ordinary Americans?—Peter's grade distribution is more widely scattered.
For their membership in the Carter/Dukakis school of wonkishness, Messrs. Romney and Gingrich both get Cs. They don't always talk down to us. But at moments they can't help themselves.
Jon Huntsman? A grade of D. He hectors. He lectures. He waves his unusually long index finger in the air like everyone's least-favorite professor.
For their membership in the Reagan school, Mrs. Bachmann and Messrs. Santorum and Paul deserve As.
...The governor of Texas, as you will recall, lost his train of thought for 53 seconds, then blurted "Oops." Appearing normal differs from appearing addled. Mr. Perry's grade: C.
Finally, on the third measure—how seriously is a candidate likely to be taken by his audience?—only Romney and Gingrich receive passing grades.
...When [Romney] speaks about the economy, the issue most on Americans' minds, he conveys depth of knowledge, the sense that he genuinely understands how to promote growth, and the flintiness to take the fight to President Obama.
...Mr. Gingrich has popped off a few times, but so have all the others. What has distinguished the former speaker has been his poise, his good humor, his intelligence and, particularly during the debates, his seriousness.
For gravitas, give Messrs. Romney and Gingrich both As.
Mr. Obama has been heralded by his admirers as one of the best speakers of all time. In fact, his speaking has been said to be so good that it is simultaneously reminiscent of Julius Caesar, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan. But I'd like to know how Peter and the rest of the Ricochetoisie grade him on the three measures of effective communication.
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Nov '10
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Bachmann does grate. But not as much as Obama, "one of the best speakers of all time". I'm not unhappy with the idea of grading these folks, but why so superficially? How about grating them on their ability to remain coherent, to correctly draw facts and analysis into their message, their use or abuse of the English language? Some things with empirically verifiable measures attached. Incidentally, few of them butcher the English language as badly as Obama, who awfully does not complete sentences and repeats wooden phrases over and over like he's trying to space his thoughts out so he doesn't run out too quickly.
Aug '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
It's often struck me that President Obama uses the exact same tone whether he's talking about the economy, honoring war veterans, or complaining of police "acting stupidly." His delivery uses the same cadence, which to my ear sounds like someone falling down the stairs. Ba-dump, ba-dump, ba-dum-dum-dum-dump.
His words are sharp. Almost pizzicato. There is no warmth. It's chilly; sub-zero.
And no, I can't stand to listen to him. I think he's a terrible speaker. Bad when he's on-prompter; a horrible mess when he's off-prompter.
(Flashback: "Are you punch-drunk?")
Edited on Jan 4 at 2:41pmAug '10
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
I agree with Peter's assessment of the GOP field. (Hey, I'm a Romney guy and even I don't think he's the most inspirational speaker out there!). As far as the angry badger Gingrich goes, the ability to be a powerful speaker is about the only thing he has going for him.
Obama's grades? D, D-, and C
Feb '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Purely for the sake of curiousity I went to see Obama speak here in NH once during the 2008 primaries. I didn't get why everyone thought he was great. He had a good sounding voice timbre, but his accent and ticks were annoying (now grating, as DrewInWisconsin notes). My negative reaction may have been influenced by his message, which was left-wing agitprop code words carefully sprinkled amongst, to be disguised by, fluffy affirmation-speak for the large number of air-heads in his audience. He was underwhelming, but I was in the minority. I didn't understand why all the people in the hall were so excited and happy, even allowing for them being liberals and me being conservative.
I voted then as I will next week, for Romney, and agree with Peter's assessment (although Romney's gotten better since then).
Edited on Jan 4 at 2:53pmAug '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Of the current crop of GOP candidates, the one whose speaking style really sets my teeth on edge is Mitt Romney. He seems to fumble around for words, that then stumble out of his mouth like random items from Fibber McGee's closet. If you told me he had a stuttering problem, I would be more forgiving. But I've never heard that about him, so I must rank him as a terrible speaker.
I can't imagine anything more painful to listen to than a debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
May '10
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Yeah, Romney isn't Sarah Palin (a la her RNC speech) and never will be. Not the end of the world.
On the other hand, either Romney, or the team he's assembled, are fantastic campaigners, for example:
BREAKING NEWS: Don Huber, a long-time Romney friend just suggested that Herman Cain will be endorsing Romney tonight on Hannity's show. This "explains" today's McCain endorsement, which, put a pit in my stomach: one for the center, and one or two for the conservatives; maybe Sen. DeMint tomorrow? A bouquet of shock and awe endorsements that may everyone happy without making anyone cringe, except the other candidates....
BRILLIANT
(this better be true or I'll feel like a jerk)
Edited on Jan 4 at 2:54pmAug '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
I wondered the same thing during the 2008 race. I would listen to the President speaking, and then all his fawning admirers in the media would announce what a wonderful speaker he was. I couldn't figure out what they were hearing that I wasn't. At first I figured it must be the difference between a live performance and hearing it on television. But eventually I decided they were just telling me what they wanted me to believe, reality be damned.
Tell a lie enough times and it becomes indistinguishable from the truth. It's now generally accepted that the President is a golden-throated orator whose dulcet tones would make angels weep.
Yet I will insist that he a terrible speaker, and I think this is objectively true.
Mar '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
I was thinking about this last night. Here's my take:
1. Enjoyable:
Paul: C- Hectoring tone and nasal voice
Newt: A- Uses the language very eloquently
Perry: C If I hear about Texas again, I'll storm the Alamo
Mitt: C+ Breathless and frenetic
Santorum: A- I was shocked, this is a very eloquent man whose ability to speak without notes really struck me.
2. Relate:
Paul: B On domestic issues, an A, on foreign policy, crazy uncle in the basement.
Newt: B But I still wish I was in college.
Perry: B+ Credible on the economy, but see "Enjoyable" above
Mitt: B Wooden and scripted, which makes it hard to believe that he means it.
Santorum: A- Based on just last night's speech, because like most everyone else, this is the first time I paid attention to him.
Seriousness:
Paul: A But in his case on foreign policy, that's not a good thing
Newt: A Serious but oh wait! There's a squirrel!
Perry: B- If it didn't happen in Texas, it can't happen
Mitt: C- Flip or flop, take your pick
Santorum: B Based on limited universe of data
Sep '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
I haven't been terribly impressed with Santorum as a speaker in the past, but I thought his "victory" speech last night was terrific. Some very moving reflections on his grandfather combined with some pretty well formulated policy stuff.
May '10
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Gingrich is losing his good humor in a devastating (for him) way. He's in complainer mode, and it's over for him if he doesn't snap out of it pronto.
Santorum can have an exasperated tone in debates, which, when combined with his frequent I-just-bit-a-lemon expression, is anti-Reagan. He needs to work on that, and probably will. When he's on his game, he's the everyman.
Fwiw, while listening to our car radio on the way to school, my daughter said, "Ooh, who's that? He's got a cool voice." It was Romney. He's got that news-anchor thing going, I guess. That probably works pretty well with most people, on balance -- unless you just hate his guts, like Peter. :-)
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
DrewInWisconsin:
And no, I can't stand to listen to him. I think he's a terrible speaker. Bad when he's on-prompter; a horrible mess when he's off-prompter.
Ditto. And come to think of it, I haven't listened to him in what seems like...perhaps a year. Can that be right? His speeches and appearances became so numerous and vapid that there was really no point in watching them.
Will watch the SOTU address this month for the theater of it, and then later this year I'll watch the concession speech.
Jun '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Diane Ellis, Ed.
DrewInWisconsin:
And no, I can't stand to listen to him. I think he's a terrible speaker. Bad when he's on-prompter; a horrible mess when he's off-prompter.
Ditto. And come to think of it, I haven't listened to him in what seems like...perhaps a year. Can that be right? His speeches and appearances became so numerous and vapid that there was really no point in watching them.
Will watch the SOTU address this month for the theater of it, and then later this year I'll watch the concession speech. · Jan 4 at 3:21pm
Oh, I believe you've seen him speaking often in the past year, Diane. How could you avoid him? It's just that his hectoring class warfare has become part of the background noise. You might have mistaken him for an OWS miscreant.
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Colin B Lane
Diane Ellis, Ed.
Ditto. And come to think of it, I haven't listened to him in what seems like...perhaps a year. Can that be right? His speeches and appearances became so numerous and vapid that there was really no point in watching them.
Will watch the SOTU address this month for the theater of it, and then later this year I'll watch the concession speech. · Jan 4 at 3:21pm
Oh, I believe you've seen him speaking often in the past year, Diane. How could you avoid him? It's just that his hectoring class warfare has become part of the background noise. You might have mistaken him for an OWS miscreant. · Jan 4 at 3:31pm
Perhaps you're right. It's like the adults in the Peanuts cartoons. "Wah wah, wah wah wah Wah." Just noise.
I give Obama failing grades on enjoyability and relatability, but a better grade of C+ or even B- for seriousness.
And where I deviate from Peter on his grading of the candidates is on Huntsman. I don't think he deserves a D. Maybe a C, but certainly not a D.
Jan '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Diane Ellis: "...I'd like to know how Peter and the rest of the Ricochetoisie grade him on the three measures of effective communication.?"
When Gingrich speaks, in fact and appearance, he take command of the discussion, address the material points with insight along with substantiation, and does it concisely. He appears to know what he's talking about.
Romney appears to be an overt softy in words and facial expression; there's no firmness in his presentation. Concision is not his strong point, so he tends to ramble on. While much of what he says, particularly when he avoids the Romneycare pitfalls, sounds good, it is said without forceful assertion - as though he's tentative about his convictions. I'm not sure he's unambiguous or spinning away from trouble.
Characterizing the others, including Santorum, is immaterial; none will survive for much longer
Apr '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Diane Ellis, Ed.
DrewInWisconsin:
And no, I can't stand to listen to him. I think he's a terrible speaker. Bad when he's on-prompter; a horrible mess when he's off-prompter.
Ditto. And come to think of it, I haven't listened to him in what seems like...perhaps a year. Can that be right? His speeches and appearances became so numerous and vapid that there was really no point in watching them.
Will watch the SOTU address this month for the theater of it, and then later this year I'll watch the concession speech. · Jan 4 at 3:21pm
$5 says you watch the debates. I'll listen to the others, too, particularly the Convention speech, for campaign calling purposes, but the debates and the SOTU are the only performances I'm be excited about.
Apr '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
ParisParamus: Yeah, Romney isn't Sarah Palin and never will be. Not the end of the world.
On the other hand, either Romney, or the team he's assembled, are fantastic campaigners, for example:
BREAKING NEWS: Don Huber, a long-time Romney friend just suggested that Herman Cain will be endorsing Romney tonight on Hannity's show. This "explains" today's McCain endorsement, which, put a pit in my stomach: one for the center, and one or two for the conservatives; maybe Sen. DeMint tomorrow? A bouquet of shock and awe endorsements that may everyone happy without making anyone cringe, except the other candidates....
(this better be true or Ill feel like a jerk) ·
DeMint, I don't believe. He likes Romney, has been good to him this cycle, endorsed him in the last, and probably wants him to win, but this would be absurd timing. For the first time in the race since there was still a shine on Perry, there's a viable (Cain) serious conservative (Newt, Paul) alternative to Romney. I don't see DeMint going after Santorum.
Cain would be neat, and a body blow to Newt. Still, don't count your chickens yet.
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
James Of England
Diane Ellis, Ed.
DrewInWisconsin:
And no, I can't stand to listen to him. I think he's a terrible speaker. Bad when he's on-prompter; a horrible mess when he's off-prompter.
Ditto. And come to think of it, I haven't listened to him in what seems like...perhaps a year. Can that be right? His speeches and appearances became so numerous and vapid that there was really no point in watching them.
Will watch the SOTU address this month for the theater of it, and then later this year I'll watch the concession speech. · Jan 4 at 3:21pm
$5 says you watch the debates.
Darn, forgot about those. Yes, I co-host the Ricochet debate live-chats with Yeti, so I'll be watching them.
May '10
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Cain would be neat, and a body blow to Newt. Still, don't count your chickens yet.
Well, I did buy a jerk insurance policy to cover me in case I'm wrong about Cain (I need it even if I'm passing along someone else's info). The policy was not that price-y. The DeMint endorsement is speculation, and not covered or needed to be covered by the policy; and if it's going to happen, would likely be better timed closer to the SC GOP Primary.
Oct '10
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
Obama makes a good first impression, at least he did on my wife and I with his 2004 Democratic Convention speech. I think it may have been the non-partisan tone--what an actor--and the generally upbeat message. Now he's fingernails-on-the-chalkboard for both of us.
(1) C-, because less than 50% want to listen to him.
(2) F-, the world's Premier Patroniser. Nobody does it better.
(3) Good old-fashioned, solid F. He's over his head Domestically and Internationally.
Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan. A,A,A. It can't be said often enough.
Jan '11
Re: The Not-So-Great Communicators
I saw Obama's convention speech where he first attracted national attention. My only thought was that he was better than Kerry, but I was astonished by the reaction to him.
I saw his early speeches in the 2008 campaign, and I honestly thought he was a parody. The nonsense like "We are the people we've been waiting for" really turned me off. The "just words?" speech made me cringe. The Germany speech was Chuncey Gardner at his best - he had nothing to say.
The only time I considered liking him was when John McCain dragged both campaigns to the White House during the financial panic, and Obama's reaction was "this is a ridiculous waste of time." (He was right about that.)
I almost always skip his speeches. Occasionally, I'll succumb to the argument that if nothing else, I should give the elected leader of the country another chance ... but within minutes, Obama proves beneath the task, and starts the pandering or self-pity, and suddenly I remember why I skip him.
When he fumbles the simplest questions ... umm ... ahh ... I actually feel that he's wasting time that I could use for sleeping.