A couple of days ago Daniel Henninger, the right wing partisan columnist for the Wall Street Journal, had a column that cited three presidential speeches of note: Nixon’s Checkers, Kennedy’s Houston, and Obama’s Jeremiah Wright. Which were precisely the same three speeches I cited in calling for Hillary to emulate them with a speech on money. He also cited a fourth speech, Reagan’s 1964 Goldwater speech calling for people to take a stand. Henninger’s point was that either Cruz or Rubio needed a big speech against Trump, like the speeches he cited, to change the dynamic.
So I sent him an email:
Funny you should cite the big rescue speeches of Nixon, Kennedy, and Obama, because I did just the same thing last week in my blog.
Except I did the Democratic version, because that is exactly what I think Hillary needs to do. Actually, I think her dilemma is closer to that of Nixon, Kennedy, and Obama, because she needs a response to a very specific problem - money and politics. The NKO speeches were also responses to very specific problems, whereas Rubio and Cruz face a more general sense of stasis, and if they made "the speech," it wouldn't put anything to bed for them, I think.
Anyway, take a look for this similar view I have, just on the Democratic side.
Best,
Budd Shenkin
So he responded:
I think you are right about Hillary needing to do that. She personally is incapable of thinking it through but there must be a Ted Sorenson somewhere to do it for her. The Speech refers to a generic blockage in a campaign that needs to be broken. Cruz would have to essentially repudiate much of his campaign so far to give a Reaganesque speech. I think Rubio could do it. I'd at least like to find out. Best, Dan Henninger
So there we have it! Bob Reich on the Left thinks I have it right, and so does Dan Menninger on the Right.
Universal popularity, what I always wanted!
Budd Shenkin
So I sent him an email:
Funny you should cite the big rescue speeches of Nixon, Kennedy, and Obama, because I did just the same thing last week in my blog.
Except I did the Democratic version, because that is exactly what I think Hillary needs to do. Actually, I think her dilemma is closer to that of Nixon, Kennedy, and Obama, because she needs a response to a very specific problem - money and politics. The NKO speeches were also responses to very specific problems, whereas Rubio and Cruz face a more general sense of stasis, and if they made "the speech," it wouldn't put anything to bed for them, I think.
Anyway, take a look for this similar view I have, just on the Democratic side.
Best,
Budd Shenkin
So he responded:
I think you are right about Hillary needing to do that. She personally is incapable of thinking it through but there must be a Ted Sorenson somewhere to do it for her. The Speech refers to a generic blockage in a campaign that needs to be broken. Cruz would have to essentially repudiate much of his campaign so far to give a Reaganesque speech. I think Rubio could do it. I'd at least like to find out. Best, Dan Henninger
So there we have it! Bob Reich on the Left thinks I have it right, and so does Dan Menninger on the Right.
Universal popularity, what I always wanted!
Budd Shenkin
