From an Associated Press article about Bush’s refusal to criticize Obama in public:
Bush declined to critique the Obama administration Tuesday in his first speech since leaving office. Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said that Obama’s decisions are threatening America’s safety.
“I’m not going to spend my time criticizing him. There are plenty of critics in the arena,” Bush said. “He deserves my silence.”
Bush said he wants Obama to succeed and said it’s important that he has that support. Talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has said he hoped Obama would fail.
The first thing to note, of course, is that Bush is behaving properly in this situation and other ex-presidents should take notice. (Ex-vice-presidents are a different matter, because they’re still considered to be politically viable. Ex-presidents are considered to have finished their political life and gone out to pasture.)
Notice how the reporter juxtaposes three statements:
- Cheney says Obama’s policies are dangerous
- Bush wants Obama to succeed
- Rush wants Obama to fail
Essay questions:
- Is it possible, given the context of the article, to understand what any of the three speakers believes Obama’s goal is? Or even which policies Cheney thinks are dangerous?
- Is there any journalistic reason to include the asides about Rush and Cheney?
- Are we to conclude that in public it’s better to say “succeed” than “fail” or “dangerous,” no matter the context, because we know reporters will pull this kind of crap?
- Is that the kind of situation we should put up with? Is there a way to fight back against this kind of garbage such that you can use an ordinary vocabulary in the way you see fit without it being willfully misconstrued?
Comment by dicentra on 3/18 @ 10:16 pm #
You also might note that because Bush is saying nice things about Obama, they don’t go out of their way to make him look like an ignoramus.
That is the price for good press these days: worship the same idols as the Left, genuflect to the same ideas, kiss the same rings.
Comment by serr8d on 3/18 @ 11:15 pm #
I don’t know how the reporter comes up with “Bush wants Obama to succeed” from the quotes you’ve cited. Seems the reporter is taking a leap; an unjustified leap, given there’s no real substantive signifiers. But, in this example, ’silence’ is not really..silence.
I would guess that Bush, by not directly praising O!’s goals and tactics, is in fact criticizing, with nuance. Bush’s use of the word ‘critics’ in his comments tinges his own ’silence’ with an ever-so-slight hue of..FAIL.
A superb usage of nuance, IMHO.