Bush introduces Snow…
Here is a transcript of Bush’s announcement of Tony Snow as the new White House press secretary, with my comments in brackets:
BUSH: Good morning.
I’m here in the briefing room to break some news: I’ve asked Tony Snow to serve as my new press secretary.
Tony already knows most of you, and he’s agreed to take the job anyway. And I’m really glad he did.
[Standard rhetorical maneuver #1: Open with a joke.]
I’m confident that Tony Snow will make an outstanding addition to this White House staff. I am confident he will help you do your job.
[It would be interesting to know what Bush thinks that job is.]
My job is to make decisions. And his job is to help explain those decisions to the press corps and the American people.
[Note that Bush uses this short introduction to stay on message, i.e. the "decision" meme. Can Scott McClellan be said to have done such explaining? It depends upon one's definition of an "explanation" or one's understanding of the act of "explaining." "Why" and "how" questions have no end point. And at some point a press secretary must necessarily cut off the pursuit of "why" and "how." McClellan rarely indulged the press with satisfying answers to such questions--even when the questions were glaringly necessary and legitimate.]
He understands like I understand that the press is vital to our democracy.
[So it's no longer just a special interest? Or, perhaps, it's a special interest that's vital to democracy. Further, this statement stretches credulity because Snow, despite his overt partisanship, conducts himself as a journalist and has been willing to criticize the Bush administration.]
As a professional journalist, Tony Snow understands the importance of the relationship between government and those whose job it is to cover the government.
[The question isn't whether Snow understands such things. The question is: Will he be allowed to nurture that relationship to the mutual benefit of the press and the administration?--something that most certainly was not the case with McClellan.]
He’s going to work hard to provide you with timely information about my philosophy, my priorities and the actions we are taking to implement our agenda.
[Pure flackery. It's all about Bush. No indication that answers to "why" and "how" will be priorities.]
He brings a long record of accomplishment to this position. He has spent a quarter of a century in the news business. He’s worked in all three major media: print, radio and television.
[Ethos]
He started his career in 1979 as an editorial writer for the Greensboro Record in North Carolina. He went on to write editorials for the Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk. He ran the editorial pages in both the Daily Press of Newport News and The Washington Times.
He’s written nationally syndicated columns for both the Detroit News and USA Today.
During his career in print journalism, he’s been cited for his work by the Society of Professional Journalists, the Associated Press and Gannett.
For seven years he served as the host of “Fox News Sunday.” Most recently, he reached Americans all across our country as the host of “The Tony Snow Show” on Fox News Radio and “Weekend Live with Tony Snow” on the Fox News Channel.
He’s not afraid to express his own opinions. For those of you who’ve read his columns and listened to his radio show, he sometimes has disagreed with me. I asked him about those comments, and he said, “You should have heard what I said about the other guy.”
[Har de har har... but notice that this little joke detonates a smoke screen. What can we really see here? Is Bush suggesting that Snow will continue to criticize his administration and/or "the other guy"? Is he promising no more briefings as usual?]
I like his perspective, I like the perspective he brings to this job, and I think you’re going to like it, too.
[The "like" anaphora is a scheme of power--reinforcement through repetition. And also notice the subtle antithesis between what Bush likes and what he "thinks" the press will like. Further, exactly what is this perspective? Are we talking political ideology, or an understanding of the press-politics relationship, or something else? This is the kind of say-nothing statement designed to be freely interpreted but demanding instead that an alert press begin asking cogent questions.]
Tony knows what it’s like to work inside the White House. In 1991, he took a break from journalism to serve as director of speechwriting and deputy assistant to the president for media affairs.
He’s taught children in Kenya. He belongs to a rock band called Beats Working. He’s a man of courage. He’s a man of integrity. He loves his family a lot. He is the loving husband of a fine wife and the father of three beautiful children.
[More ethos--an important appeal because the administration's relationship with the press has been rather testy precisely because Stonewall McClellan did his job so well--a job we have every reason to believe Bush authorized and approved of.]
He succeeds a decent and talented man in Scott McClellan.
I’ve known Scott since he worked for me in Texas. We traveled our state together, we traveled our country together, and we have traveled the world together. We have also made history together.
[i.e. rollback?]
Scott should be enormously proud of his service to our nation in an incredibly difficult job. I will always be grateful to him. I will always be proud to call him friend.
I appreciate Scott’s offer to help Tony Snow prepare for his new job. And I’m proud to welcome Tony as part of our team.
Appreciate you, buddy.
SNOW: Well, Mr. President, I want to thank you for the honor of serving as press secretary.
And just a couple of quick notes.
I’m delighted to be here. One of the things I want to do is just make it clear that one of the reason I took the job is not only because I believe in the president, because, believe it or not, I want to work with you. These are times that are going to be very challenging. We’ve got a lot of big issues ahead and we’ve got a lot of important things that all of us are going to be covering together. And I am very excited and I can’t wait.
[Yikes! Better work on your extemporaneous speaking skills. You won't have a Tele-Promt-R in the briefing room.]
And I want to thank you, Mr. President, for the honor.
And thank all your guys for your forbearance. And I look forward to working with you.
Thanks.
Tag: journalism
Tag: rhetoric
Tag: politics
Bush: “He’s going to work hard to provide you with timely information about my philosophy…”
What’s to be timely about? If the president’s “philosophy” ever amounts to anything but rigid ideology, I’ll be glad to hear it in a timely manner, but I don’t expect enough to check in frequently. I’m pretty confident I’ve understood the man for five years, and the only surprises have been just how far he’ll go.
But even to suggest that there could be something “timely” to report about his philosophy is a wonderful, if over-subtle, rhetorical move.
Max- That’s a good observation. One could go on and on about this little introduction
Rhetorica,
You wrote:
The “like” anaphora is a scheme of power–reinforcement through repetition.
As a linguist, my understanding of “anaphora” — as you probably know — has a much wider range of reference than yours, but over twenty years ago I did my undergraduate in Classics and read and discussed many of your primary texts in their original languages. Even within the realm of rhetoric studies, the idea of calling “anaphora” a “scheme of power” is … how to put this politely? … oh hell, ridiculous. I can accept much of your analysis, but that patch is awful, Rhetorica.
Is litotes simply obfuscation that simply needs a round of talk-therapy?
Is asyndeton a symptom of ADD?
Is polysyndeton a sign of a strict upbringing?
Heh heh.
Don’t be duped by your own tropes.
*
Rhetorica,
This is gonna be fun with guys like Max Hansen hanging around.
I’m already sharpening my knife. Zing!Zing!Zing!
My only joy in life is carving up guys like Max who suffers from BDS. Rhetorica, I know that, as a “professional,” you’re trying to keep it in your pants, but that lasts only so long.
One of you is up in the top-floor bedroom and the other is down at the office running the BATES MOTEL.
I don’t know if you or Max is the dead stiff, but I’ll find out. Whoever it is, the other one is surely Mad Tony watching cars on the highway.
*
Jeffrey– You’ll find that most of the commenters on Rhetorica have a genuine interest in civic discourse–especially regarding the press-politics relationship. In four years of writing this blog, I’ve enjoyed a lively and respectful debate with the people who pay me the respect of spending time reading and commenting. If you’d like to be one of those people–bringing a linguist’s expertise to the table–then I’m thrilled. If you merely wish to play the troll, then please go bother someone else. I’m unimpressed by academic snottiness.
Acline,
Here’s what I’m saying, Acline. From both a linguist’s perspective AND from someone who has studied the roots of Western rhetoric in both Latin and Greek, the idea of calling a rhetorical term like “anaphora” a “scheme of power” is absurd.
Anaphora is linguistics is a different beast, but in rhetoric it is simply used to refer to the repetition of of phrases to heighten the drama, so to speak. Calling this technique a “scheme of power” is nuts.
Listen, I’ve read your attached pages and really like most of your analyses, but you’re splashing around in a tub when you talk about “anaphora.” This is my expert opinion.
Now if you want to challenge my claim, go ahead. Explain to me how anaphora is a “scheme of power.”
Your integrity IS on the line. Sorry, but you’re in the Brave New World of the blogopshere, where our claims are open to instant rebuttal.
Are you ready for the blogosphere talking back at you? And I don’t mean from some of your friends from down the hall.
By the way, I have noticed you have very, very few commenters.
Anyway, Pard, I’m not playing the troll. This is just how I speak.
*
Max,
Can you tell me of an example of an ideology that isn’t “rigid”?
Heh heh.
Bush’s rigid ideology?
Heh heh. You guys must be happy to see me.
*
Acline,
You clip Snow’s comments and then respond:
[Yikes! Better work on your extemporaneous speaking skills. You won't have a Tele-Promt-R in the briefing room.]
I isolate one of your comments on anaphora and then respond:
Even within the realm of rhetoric studies, the idea of calling “anaphora” a “scheme of power” is … how to put this politely? … oh hell, ridiculous. I can accept much of your analysis, but that patch is awful, Rhetorica.
Difference?
Well, there is. Your attack is clearly ad hominem, while I have challenged your ideas about how anaphora operates in discourse.
Well? Let’s debate. I mean REALLY debate. I’ve been following this blog for a long time and I haven’t seen much that would put a smile on Protagoras’s face. You don’t think debate is slapping each other on the back, do you?
On many, many points we agree. On this point we disagree. Are you man enough to take up the challenge of true dialectic?
*
Jeffrey– I’m happy to discuss anaphora as a scheme of power. I’m fascinated that 1) you should find this so absurd, and 2) that you should be so disturbed by it that you open a discussion with insults. If you demonstrate that I’m wrong about this, that’s great! I’ll learn something. I’m a good academic, i.e. I’m all about trying to discover how things work. Here’s the problem: You know who I am, but I have no clue who you are. All I have are your assertions about what you’ve studied and what you know–backed up by absolutely nothing. You might just be some precocious 14-year-old brat with too much time on his hands and no parental supervision.
Should men seeking knowledge and truth begin a dialectic with insults? Hmmmmmmmm… what would Plato think about that? You’ve read him in the original Greek. Tell me. Cite the proper dialogue and passage. Explain to me the role that eros should play.
You get one more chance to mind your manners.
Acline,
Cite the proper dialogue and passage? Heh heh. Now you’re just being boorish. But I’ll let that pass.
Let’s take a look at anaphora, okay? I’ll go slow. Anaphora has been around for a long, long time, discussed to be sure by the Sophists, for whom the technicalities of argument and debate were central to their skills as orators and teachers. It simply means the repetition of words or phrases. In one way, it’s a simple and attractive form for listing points. In another way, it works by setting up expectation and delivering on that expectation, thus satisfying on a gut level.
That’s how I see anaphora.
So let me ask again. Explain how anaphora is a “scheme of power.”
I have no insults for you. I’m saying that the idea of anaphora being a “scheme of power” is ridiculous, not you. I assume, at the same time, that as a “good academic,” — as I consider myself — you will honor my request to explain your views on anaphora. Who knows? Maybe I’ll change my mind. But I won’t be able to until you explain yourself.
By the way, what in God’s name does Plato’s “Symposium” have to do with anaphora? Dialectic, indeed. But not anaphora.
Synecdoche and metonymy are much more essential to human communication than something like anaphora.
I can tell you from personal experience that real torture — a method that perhaps should be considered for Guantanamo — is slogging through the ablative absolute constructions in Cicero and trying to hunt down and piece back together all the parts of Thucydides’ sentences. And yes I did indeed read Plato in the original. That was almost 25 years ago now, but I can still bang my way through with Liddel-Scott in my hand, and a Greenough at my elbow.
I hope my manners are more to your liking this time.
Oh crap! My Mom and Dad are knocking on the door and telling me to get to bed. Heh heh.
*
Acline,
By the way, just for the sake of argument (Wow! What a concept!), what if I were just a “precocious 14-year-old brat”? What difference would that make?
Don’t we academics take an oath that upholds our belief in a free forum where all ideas, no matter where their ultimate source resides, are viewed for their own merits or demerits?
Your statement reveals an lack of confidence, don’t you think? Or perhaps a breach in our sacred oath?
Listen, if I could meet a 14-year-old who knows what an ablative absolute structure is and can give the approximate weight for a hardback Liddel-Scott, I certainly want to meet them and have a chat.
*