In the September issue of Speechwriter's Newsletter, a columnist argues that the only thing a speechwriter should care about is the money溶ot the justice of the cause or the virtue of the speaker.

Daniel Ellsberg may beg to differ. In early July擁n case you missed it勇lsberg wrote a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times. He said a President Bush speech the week before預n argument for staying the course in Iraq�"evoked in me a sense of familiarity, but not nostalgia."

Working at the State Department and the Department of Defense in the 1960s, Ellsberg wrote similar speeches for Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, and people in their administrations.

A note particularly reminiscent in Bush's speech was his reference to "a time of testing." "We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve," he said.

This theme recalled a passage in my 1965 draft [for a speech ultimately never delivered by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara] that, for reasons that will be evident, I have never chosen to reproduce before. I ended by painting a picture of communist China as "an opponent that views international politics as a whole as a vast guerrilla struggle ... intimidating, ambushing, demoralizing and weakening those who would uphold an alternative world order."

"We are being tested," I wrote. "Have we the guts, the grit, the determination to stick with a frustrating, bloody, difficult course as long as it takes to see it through. ...? The Asian communists are sure that we have not." Tuesday, Bush said: Our adversaries "believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat."

His speechwriters, like me, then faced this question from the other side. To meet the enemy's test of resolve, how long must the American public support troops as they kill and die in a foreign land? Their answer came in the same workmanlike evasions that served Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon: "as long as we are needed [and not a day longer] ... until the fight is won."

I can scarcely bear to reread my own proposed response in 1965 to that question, which drew on a famous riposte by the late U.N. Ambassador Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban missile crisis:

"There is only one answer for us to give. It was made ... by an American statesman ... in the midst of another crisis that tested our resolution. Till hell freezes over."

It doesn't feel any better to hear similar words from another president 40 years on, nor will they read any better to his speechwriters years from now. But the human pain they foretell will not be mainly theirs."

Speechwriters, do you travel with your speakers?

A couple of days ago a communicator said he was looking for work as a corporate speechwriter but was concerned about the travel:

"A speechwriter for a Fortune 500 company usually accompanies the executive to a speaking engagement, and I know that it might mean two or three days away from the office. But how frequently are you away for extended periods?"

I replied to him that I heard many more complaints from speechwriters who wish they could see their Chief deliver the speech than from speechwriters tired of traveling to speeches.

The dude never wrote me back. Perhaps he thought me an idiot. Perhaps he was right.

Speechwriters, you tell me: Do you go where your speaker goes? Or, do you only wish you did?

Have you read my memo to speakers, on
behalf of speechwriters? Would you send it?

I'm a lucky sort of writer in that, I like to read what I've written. For every awkward sentence that makes me cringe, there are two lines that make me say, "Hot damn, Murray! How did you think of that on a Wednesday afternoon?"

(I know writers who hate to read what they've written; they're probably better writers than I am, but I'm happier.)

All this to say that, when my open letter to speechwriting clients on behalf of speechwriters appeared on this Web site, I reread what I had written back in late June (for the August issue of Speechwriter's Newsletter), and, not surprisingly, found parts of it quite marvelous.

But I started to wonder about the practicality of the idea. I wondered:

Is one single speechwriter going to actually pass this on to his or her Senator or CEO?

If you did, I'd love to hear from you: How was it received? Did it do you any good? Is there any way I can help you in your job search?

If you didn't, I wonder: Was there one thing in the memo that made it impossible for you to send? If you were me writing a memo for you to give your boss, what would you have said? Is there anything that can be said by anybody at a rate more efficient than one speechwriter/CEO relationship at a time, to convince leaders to spend more time on and devote more energy to the speech-making process?

(Now that, friends, is an awkward sentence.)

Jan Cook is the founder and the leader of the Washington Speechwriters Roundtable; in that capacity, she often sends her members information on new speechwriting positions that she hears about.

"I always say, don't ask me about job listings that I share because I'm just the messenger," Cook wrote in a note attached the latest job post. "This time it's different because I'm letting you in on a job I know very well."

She knows it because it's a senior speechwriting position at Georgetown University, where Cook writes speeches for the president.

And Cook is willing to answer questions about the job, posted below. Drop her an e-mail.

I'll say one thing about university speechwriting, based on the fact that we had several dozen university writers at the last Speechwriters Conference: Their enthusiasm and sophistication led me to believe that university speechwriting is one of the most rewarding and intellectually engaging types of speechwriting jobs.

Happily, the job description doesn't require university communication experience, so anyone can apply.

Speechwriter
Georgetown University

Georgetown University is seeking a senior-level speechwriter to help develop communications materials with and for the University President. The speechwriter will take the lead in producing speeches that articulate the vision and ideas of a President who maintains a very active local, national and international speaking schedule. In addition to the University community, major audiences include alumni; government, religious, corporate, cultural, diplomatic, and academic leaders; and professional associations. Other responsibilities include drafting op-eds, public letters and other documents that extend the President's message. The successful candidate will have a strong record of experience, excellent interpersonal skills, and proven ability to balance competing demands in a dynamic environment.

Georgetown University was founded in 1789 and is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit university in America. It is ranked among the nation's elite research universities. About 13,000 students are enrolled in Georgetown's four undergraduate schools and three graduate and professional schools. For more information, visit the Georgetown Web site.

Interested applicants should send a cover letter, resume and two speeches to Vince Bunuan. If you prefer to send materials by mail, send to:

Vince Bunuan
Office of the President
204 Healy Hall
Georgetown University
Washington, DC 20057

No calls, please.

I'm occasionally asked for references for speaking coaches. Lately, as speakers seem to be emerging from underneath their desks, where they spent most of the post-9/11, post-Enron, post-New Economy, I'm getting lots of these requests.

Almost invariably, the first two names I offer are Virgil Scudder and Tom Mucciolo, two geniuses of their craft.

But they're geniuses in different ways. Both have spoken at the Speechwriter's Conference.

Scudder strikes me as a man who can convince CEOs he is their equal. He has a kind of CEO-like demeanor and lots of good psychological advice and speaking techniques to back it up.

Mucciolo, meanwhile, is a master of technical elocution skills. There is nothing to do with presentation skills that he has not only identified but figured out how to teach.

These guys are both great; but they're only two guys, and they charge serious dough for their work.

My question is: Have you identified great and/or affordable speaking coaches that work well with speakers and get results?

I ask this for selfish reasons悠'd like to have more than two guys on my A list預nd also so we can share in the best speaking coaches.

Let's hear your recommendations!

Lisa Kadonaga does not like George W. Bush. She does like his first-term speechwriter, Michael Gerson.

Writing in the online Liberal Slant back when Gerson was Bush's speechwriter, she offered a few explanations as to why a good fellow like Gerson could enthusiastically work for a bad fellow like Bush.

I ran across this the other day and thought, no matter how you feel about Gerson and Bush熔r Kadonaga's no doubt simplistic take on about their relationship葉hat some of her analysis is astute:

� "[Gerson] sees his boss as a gentle, compassionate man, who's thoughtful and expressive. Writers always put something of themselves into their work, especially if they care about it, and I suspect this is what is happening to Mr. Gerson. Like all artists, writers tend to portray what they see, rather than what is actually there."

� "As someone who once worked as an editor, I realize that it's at once exciting and humbling, when another human being--especially someone like Mr. Bush, who is a lot more secretive and insecure than his public persona would imply--confides that much in you. I know for a fact that there is absolutely nothing like when someone sees words you have written and exclaims, 'That's exactly what I was feeling--how did you know!'

� "According to legend, not long after Michael Gerson started working for Mr. Bush, he made a mistake, and the boss didn't blame him for it, but talked to him reassuringly. It just took that one time--that's how loyal Mr. Gerson is."

� "Besides, there is a kind of glamour (in the original, dangerous sense) which surrounds influential people, and is pretty difficult to resist."

Readers, have you ever been influenced by any of these factors to help a leader whose politics or policies you did not, at bottom, agree with?

I'd love to hear the story.

I e-mailed a corporate speechwriter the other day and got back an auto-reply: "On deadline. With anything urgent, be sure to call me at …."

My first reaction was: YEAH BOY! Speechwriters in general are anxious to prove they're the same as all the other people in the organization—communicators are businesspeople, too!—that they usually dissociate themselves with journalistic terms like "deadline."

And for good reason in some cases: Saying you're "on deadline" can mystify people who don't know anything about journalism … cause resentment in others who would have you know they have deadlines, too … and generate unwanted pity from some who may have something to gain from pegging you as an ink-stained wretch.

Still, I like the speechwriter's chutzpah and I say, if it works, do it. I'm going to start doing it myself.

But an "On Deadline" e-mail message isn't enough.

I'm thinking of getting a hat printed up.

If you want to go on the road with your speaker,
offer yourself as a speech Sherpa

The consensus last week on a blog entry about whether speechwriters should travel with their speakers: yes. The reality: It doesn't happen as much as it should.

A late entry into that conversation comes from freelancer Jay Stuller, who worked for years at Chevron. He says he traveled frequently with at least "a half dozen different execs."

Here's why: "We frequently made changes en-route or at the event, if a pertinent news or other development would help make it a better talk. Also, the executives were clearly comfortable knowing a professional had their back謡hether it was working with media, answering post-speech questions, keeping in contact with the office, collecting business cards and, essentially, freeing the individual to concentrate on the audience. What's more, the flight home would typically include a debrief on the speech."

I wonder: If execs knew a speechwriter was able and willing to serve as such a speech Sherpa, would they be less likely to climb to the podium alone?

The bizarre and hideous story of the BTK killer reached into the realm of rhetoric yesterday as Dennis Rader was allowed to make a statement before his sentencing that lasted more than 20 minutes.

I happened to catch it live on CNN yesterday. I watched with my mouth open.

To me, the strangest part of the speech wasn't Rader's one-by-one naming of his victims and his attempt to identify things he and they had in common.

"She liked to write poetry悠 liked to write poetry," he said of one of his victims, an 11-year-old girl. "She liked to draw, I liked to draw."

This seemed a transparent attempt to demonstrate to the judge and the world that, since he understood he had killed human beings, therefore he must be a human being.

I was more confounded by Rader's insistence on thanking people in his legal team, individual police officers, jail guards and other prison officials, one of whom he identified with a thumbs-up gesture as "my main man."

In his statement, he had the air of an aging Hollywood actor who had won his first Oscar after being diagnosed with terminal cancer.

It was his last chance to thank everybody who helped get him here揺is victims, his lawyers, the police and the jail guards.

I'm not an expert on court procedures, but I wondered why, if the Academy limits the amount of time Tom Hanks can stand and thank the little people, why a judge can't cut a rambling narcissist off after 10 minutes.

I figured he realized the weird speech was making good television預s had the victims' speeches, at least one of which was also bizarre, full of 19th century-sounding lines like, "If I were to sink to your level I would say that this world would have been much better off had your mother aborted your demon soul before you were unleashed on this world �."

After watching all this for more than an hour yesterday afternoon佑NN ran no commercials during the sentencing hearing悠 decided for myself, once and for all: We're stuck with TV cameras at awards ceremonies, weddings, State of the Union addresses and in Hulk Hogan's living room.

Let's keep them out of courtrooms on the grounds that they people into hams and that we don't want court sessions to become Showtime at the Apollo for every defendant, prosecutor, victim and judge.

Wal-Mart communicators send their employee magazine, Wal-Mart World, to Ragan Communications.

I don't know why they still do this, after I have hammered the company without let-up for about a year-and-a-half for its public relations foolishness in The Ragan Report's frequent "Wal-Mart Watch" section.

It must be because they don't read The Ragan Report.

In the July issue, I read a column by the fresh-faced, smiling Wal-Mart World editor David Schrag. Keep in mind, Schrag is not some overambitious district manager or some brown-nosing Wal-Mart greeter.

He's a professional communicator.

And yet, he writes:

In June, I attended this year's Shareholder Meeting-my first one-and am still on cloud nine, trying to come down from the excitement the entertainment and the meetings had to offer.

From Will Smith and Jon Bon Jovi entertaining the crowd with their music, to [Wal-Mart CEO] Lee Scott and all of the other Wal-Mart and Sam's Club executives sharing associate accomplishments, the Shareholders' Meeting was definitely an event to remember.

Never before have I seen the enthusiasm and excitement people have for their jobs as I saw it in all of the Wal-Mart associates that were in attendance at the meeting. You couldn't mention logistics, Sam's Club or ASDA, without being interrupted by applause for a good 30 seconds. ...

...Wal-Mart started off as a small company, but because of Mr. Sam [Walton]'s vision, the demeanor of our associates toward how the customer is treated, the company has consistently gotten better. So why all the negative press? Nobody can truly answer that, but from the experiences I shared with thousands of associates at the Shareholders' Meeting, there is nothing but undying love for Wal-Mart. ...

David Murray becomes first paid blogger in
the world to retire! Hal Gordon takes over …

Hal Gordon was my first choice for doing the Speechwriter’s Slant.

I was my second, or third.

But when I approached him to do this last fall, the former President Reagan and General Powell and ConocoPhillips speechwriter said: No way; too much work. (Yes, Hal speaks in semicolons.)

So I launched the thing myself despite the fact that I knew Hal was the better fit. Why? Because he sees the world—its present and its past—through a speechwriter’s eyes and I see it only on behalf of my speechwriter friends.

So it was with a double motive that I asked Hal to fill in for me when I went on my China adventure in July. I knew he’d fill in capably; I hoped he’d have enough fun to make it worth the work and convince him to eventually take the blog over.

And so when I returned, I approached him again. This time, he said yes.

The Speechwriter’s Slant will become Hal Gordon’s after Labor Day.

Not that my Labor on this blog is done. I expect to check it almost as obsessively as I’ve done in the past and contribute frequent posts—even occasionally contrary stuff, I’m sure (Hal and I don’t agree on everything, which is one reason we like one another).

And anybody who has grown accustomed to reading my opinions on rhetoric and speechwriting can read my frequent editorials in Speechwriter’s Newsletter.

Meanwhile, as I thank everybody who has read this blog and supported my work on it, I must say I’m tickled to give Hal the con. He will steer this slanted ship straight.

Happy Labor Day weekend, everyone.

David