Matt Latimer’s Speech-Less, Round Two

Bruce Bartlett lists my prior response on Matt Latimer’s Speech-Less as being among those reflexive, circle-the-wagons Republican responses to criticisms of George W. Bush.

Actually, my reflexive, circle-the-wagons reaction was against speechwriters betraying the trust of their presidents.  On substance, I have to agree with Bartlett that Latimer offers disturbing corroboration of what appeared to be so wrong with the second Bush presidency, especially in its disastrous second term.

Here is a quote from Latimer, after revealing how little thought went into communications, themes and messaging, as well as policy:   “The whole White House was like that–infatuated with decisiveness, dismissive of deliberation.”

Share:
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Technorati
  • brucebartlett
    Complaining about speechwriters betraying the trust of the president they write for is about as banal a criticism one can imagine, right up there with "Why can't we all just get along." If presidents really wanted to ensure the silence of their speechwriters and other staff they would make them sign a nondisclosure agreement as a condition of employment. The truth is that many speechwriters these days, perhaps Latimer among them, take these jobs in part so they can write a book about it. Since these people usually don't have any reason to burn their bridges, they mostly write positive things about the presidents they wrote for. It ends up being a win-win for everyone.
  • Mark --

    Keep in mind that Matt Latimer might not actually know how much thought went into communications, themes, and messaging. While a well-reasoned and knowledgeable critique of any Administration is possible, this doesn't appear to be it.

    As for the disastrous nature of the second term, I'll warmly disagree.

    Ed
blog comments powered by Disqus