[snotnose]

Originally posted by ambush:
You don't get it, but I don't blame you, I blame american propaganda.

He wants to take control of Iraq, establish a fake "interim" govt. and then buy the oil from Iraq at cheap rates. We all know Iraq is one of the biggest oil reserve in the world.

Do you think he wants other country to have a good economy?? No! Remember, he's the biggest capitalist monkey on earth.


Vive la r�publique, vive ceux qui se l�vent pour d�noncer la connerie!

its funny how that since we are american we are falling into american propaganda... retodd...

we get tons of other news besides U.S. based. and just because you think you know it all doesn't really matter...

its so funny how everyone know just what the future holds...

[UNTeMac]

*sigh*, it'll be nice when people get along in the lounge again....any estimates on when that'll happen?

[Zimphire]

Hopefully soon. The personal attacks are really getting obnoxious.

[RAzaRazor]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Hopefully soon. The personal attacks are really getting obnoxious.

<INTENSE SARCASM> Shut Up, Jesus Freak! </INTENSE SARCASM>

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by snotnose:
ever tried speaking with the entire world watching?

I dunno. I"ve spoken in very large groups. I did ok, and I'm not a politician. THAT'S HIS JOB.

stop making excuses for his inadequacies.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
THAT'S HIS JOB. stop making excuses for his inadequacies.

Bingo. G. W. himself would not even make such an excuse.

I do notice that most politicans do speak annoyingly slow (for my tastes). There must be some widely-accepted principles on the matter. I wish I knew more about speech-giving, and the strategies and concepts involved.

The best public-speaking I have seen from G. W. Bush have been the informal type - sitting at a table in a debate w/McCain and with a megaphone in NYC following the 9/11 attacks.

He's pretty good when he's all fired-up about something, but I assume that, at crucial times, he and his speechwriters try to stay away from what many refer to as a 'cowboy' attitude. Even his wife rips on him when he gets into his "dead or alive" speaking mode.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I do notice that most politicans do speak annoyingly slow (for my tastes). There must be some widely-accepted principles on the matter. I wish I knew more about speech-giving, and the strategies and concepts involved.

OMIGOD! i agree. I was listening to an indiana politician giving evidence on c-span yesterday, and it took FOREVER....I kept thinking "pick it up, pick up the pace!". Its like they think a dramatic pause every 15 seconds is required.

[mo]

He needs to:

1. Avoid the urge to speed up his cadence, no matter how annoying some (including me) may find it. You make most of your mistakes when your mouth gets ahead of your brain. (Bush demonstrated this a lot on the campaign trail, when he had to do a lot of extemporaneous work.) People will forgive you for speaking slowly.

2. Try to avoid sounding so resigned. Probably the worst thing about last night was the funereal tone -- the way all of his sentences ended on a down note. The same down note, over and over. It added an almost fatalistic tone to the event. That does not suit his goal.

3. Make a slightly better effort to address the question that was asked. I know, many or most politicians prefer to give the answer they want to give, rather than answer what they were asked, but, as an example, he was asked several times, in several different ways, "Why do you think there is such strong opposition from many of our allies to the invasion of Iraq," and he never really addressed it in any of his answers. Regardless of your position on the upcoming war, I think it would be fruitful for him to him or his staff to craft a better answer -- so they don't look like they're dodging the question.

4. Get over the hump on "nuclear," one way or another. Carter used to mispronounce the word the same way, and I found I was paying more attention to that than what he was saying from time to time. Either say it right or stop saying it so much -- not because it's dumb (it is), but because it's distracting.

5. Remember that you'll never, ever get any points for being the smartest guy in the class, regardless of whether you are, so don't worry about it. (This is not a slam on Bush, just a realistic observation.)

All of this offered in the spirit of practicality and non-partisanship, from somebody who has talked on camera entirely too much. ...

[Powerbook]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And Clinton's "what is is" or some sort reasoning and his "that isn't sex" excuses surely made this country look great.

Give me a break.

You should get out of your country more often. Show me one country, where Cinton's behaviour caused bad reputation. In the contrary, people were laughing about this faked moral attitude some had to represent. Kenneth Starr?! Bwa-harr.

PB.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mo:
Make a slightly better effort to address the question ... "Why do you think there is such strong opposition from many of our allies to the invasion of Iraq?"

How can he possibly answer that question? The media has spent months trying to somehow unearth the numerous reasons, and they are finding more out everyday. To ask anyone, including G.W. Bush, to answer that question with definity in a timely manner is asking way too much.

No President is a mind-reader, and that's what would be needed to understand those nations' ultimate reasons for opposing military action.

I'm sure you were also upset that Mr. Bush didn't mention the specific number of casualties that will result from military action.

[spacefreak]

dp

[mo]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
dp

Your second post was much better.

I'm not "upset" at anything. As I said in the post, it would serve his ends better to address that question. It does not require mind-reading; that is a foolish statement. As he himself has said, we are in constant discussions with our allies. Certainly, in doing so, we learn about their point of view, regardless of whether we find it credible.

I don't think all attempts to discuss this topic necessarily have to dissolve into the flamewar that has made the Lounge so unpleasant so often. Calm down, already.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Powerbook:
You should get out of your country more often. Show me one country, where Cinton's behaviour caused bad reputation. In the contrary, people were laughing about this faked moral attitude some had to represent. Kenneth Starr?! Bwa-harr.

PB.

Hey I talk to people overseas all the time. They messaged me saying "You must be embarrased for your country now"

Speak for yourself, you certainly don't speak for the rest of the world.

I'll wait for the dems to try to take Bush to trial, because he isn't as good as a BS artist as Clinton was.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I can't listen to his speeches, either. His style just really really irritates me. Even the good speeches are delivered in a way that makes the bile rise. The cadance and intonation really irritate me. I just wait and read the text of it later so I can concentrate on what he says instead of being so negatively distracted by his delivery.

I feel the same way. I can't watch his speeches -- watching him talk is physically painful for me. I do look for a transcript of the speech after the fact, and find a lot that I actually agree with (although I'll admit that I'm disagreeing with him a lot more lately, but that's another topic).

I do think that having good speaking skills is an useful for any executive role in government. Perhaps it isn't really necessary, but it certainly helps matters. Sometimes, body language, appearance, and delivery of speeches can communicate much more than the speech ever could. And part of a President's job is to clearly communicate US policy to Americans and to the World. It may not affect his ability to govern, but it does affect the perception of his leadership by citizens and non-citizens alike.

He did show some remarkable resolve and leadership immediately after 9/11, and I think he rose to the occasion. He certainly suprised me then. It's a pity that he hasn't been able to sustain that leadership, at least in my eyes, since then.

[Zimphire]

Seems the majority of the country feels he has been doing a good job. His speaches must not be effecting them that much. Most people look around such pettiness.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mo:
As I said in the post, it would serve his ends better to address that question.

If it would have served his ends better, he would have answered it. If the press wants to know why other countries oppose action, they should ask the other countries.

[mo]

Um, Spacefreak, I thought only the Pope was supposed to be infallible, but if you say so. ...

Really, you are a seriously silly person if you won't accept any criticism of the president. "If it had been the right thing to do, he would have done it" is not exactly the hallmark of a deep thinker.

Nevermind: I am again reminded of the purpose of that "ignore" button.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by mo:
"If it had been the right thing to do, he would have done it" is not exactly the hallmark of a deep thinker.

Neither is asking the U.S. President to detail the reasons why other nations are taking certain positions.

Nevermind: I am again reminded of the purpose of that "ignore" button.

To silence any opposing thought or contradictions to your claims?

.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Seems the majority of the country feels he has been doing a good job. His speaches must not be effecting them that much. Most people look around such pettiness.

OK, so I'm petty. But this petty person still has a vote. And if I think a President is a bad communicator in formal settings, and I consider communication to be important to the job, than you'll bet I'm going to take that into consideration when I go to the polls next time. It certainly won't be my only consideration, though, and it would probably be at the bottom of the list if I thought he was doing a good job. Hey, maybe I'm not so petty after all...

Remember that the whole Lewinsky mess erupted after Clinton got elected the second time. During the two elections he won, we knew that he was a bit of a slick fellow and possibly a womanizer, but he hadn't perjured himself yet, which was the whole basis of the impeachment proceeding. So in a way, all that we knew when we elected him was that he was a flawed person, just like we know that Bush has flaws, and that we all have flaws.

If you didn't vote for him either time because you thought that he didn't conduct himself in a matter befitting a President (and his flaws would get in the way of effective performance of his duties), would that have been petty?

[Zimphire]

There is a difference between being a non-charasmatic speaker like liek Clinton was and not getting your point across.

Bush does indeed get his points across. Very well I might add. He doesn't sugar coat them at all.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
There is a difference between being a non-charasmatic speaker like liek Clinton was and not getting your point across.

Bush does indeed get his points across. Very well I might add. He doesn't sugar coat them at all.

On the contrary, I felt Clinton was a VERY charismatic speaker. You didn't like what he had to say, I take it, but he was able to not only deliver a speech well but speak extemporaneously, something which Bush seems incapable of.

In fact, Clinton's speechwriter's hated him because he was always going "off-script" but he was so good at it, it appeared transparent to the general public.

I have to completely disagree with you on this one, Zim.
Clinton could speak, and effectively.
Bush has spoken effectively, on occasion, but only when he was scripted and with a script he had time to study. I don't think even most republicans think he is a good speaker off the cuff.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Bush has spoken effectively...but only when he was scripted and with a script he had time to study.

I've seen numerous occasions where he has spoken well 'off the cuff'. I'm not saying he's a great speaker by any means, but your statement above is an overly-blanketed statement that you can't possibly defend definitively.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I've seen numerous occasions where he has spoken well 'off the cuff'. I'm not saying he's a great speaker by any means, but your statement above is an overly-blanketed statement that you can't possibly defend definitively.

ok, consider it bracketed with "in my observation"

[imafreak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
If it would have served his ends better, he would have answered it. If the press wants to know why other countries oppose action, they should ask the other countries.

Bush didn't answer any of the questions he was asked. He never does.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by imafreak:
Bush didn't answer any of the questions he was asked. He never does.

Ladies and gentlemen - my liberal brother, Ima. He doesn't know too much, but my family loves him nonetheless.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
On the contrary, I felt Clinton was a VERY charismatic speaker . . .

I reacted the same way at first, then realized that what Zim probably meant to say was "There's a difference between not being a charismatic speaker like Clinton and not getting your point across."

People I know who are acquainted with Dubya say that in a more casual setting, he doesn't stumble as much as he does in front of a microphone, and seems more relaxed and articulate. Nobody's as smooth as Clinton, but in Dubya's case I suspect there's an element of stage fright involved.

All the same, I wish he were more articulate. It's not essential to leadership but I think it would inspire more confidence among skeptics.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I've seen numerous occasions where he has spoken well 'off the cuff'. I'm not saying he's a great speaker by any means, but your statement above is an overly-blanketed statement that you can't possibly defend definitively.

The times I've seen him do well without a script are when there's some overriding topic, which everyone is expecting a response to. It seems like in these situations, when he can speak from the heart, he is most genuine and effective. Like when he was at Ground Zero after 9/11 . But he had some time to reflect on the situation there, and everyone knew what he would talk about, if not what he would say.

The times I've seen him do most poorly have been when he doesn't know the exact topic in advance. Situations like debates and news conferences seem to be especially troubling. It's almost like his mind isn't fast enough to process all of the variables that are needed to answer a question put to him immediately, and may end up saying something he shouldn't have. Clinton and Reagan (when his mind was still with us) seemed to be much faster thinkers.

Now, I don't want to get this into a "Bush is dumb" hole; I'm saying he's doesn't appear to be a fast thinker, NOT that he doesn't think. Nobody who is stupid can survive in Politics.
And Fast thinkers can have problems communicating as well...

[Demonhood]

let's try to keep this thread civil. no need to insult people for expressing an opinion. anyone who thinks it IS necessary will find themselves banned from the lounge.

back on topic:
it's his facial expression that gets me every time. he always seems so damned smug with that squint and smile.

[mo]

Originally posted by dreilly1:


Now, I don't want to get this into a "Bush is dumb" hole; I'm saying he's doesn't appear to be a fast thinker, NOT that he doesn't think. Nobody who is stupid can survive in Politics.
And Fast thinkers can have problems communicating as well...

This is a good point, really. Truman was very quick with a quip or an comeback, but he regretted some of them and wished he had thought twice. Nowadays he's admired for his earthiness and honesty. Eisenhower, on the other hand, was capable of mangling the English language beyond all recognition, but it somehow worked for him at the time, and his reputation has grown since he was in office.

Both were, in my estimation, very smart men and successful presidents, but their speaking styles and mannerisms were the subject of much popular humor at the time. Bush's reputation, eventually, will be based on things that really matter, and not on his weakness as a orator.

But still ... he could do so much better than he's doing. He doesn't help himself much out there. I don't understand why people who have in the past cited Ronald Reagan as a "great communicator" would suddenly decide that oratory is insignificant.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by mo:
This is a good point, really. Truman was very quick with a quip or an comeback, but he regretted some of them and wished he had thought twice. Nowadays he's admired for his earthiness and honesty. Eisenhower, on the other hand, was capable of mangling the English language beyond all recognition, but it somehow worked for him at the time, and his reputation has grown since he was in office.

Both were, in my estimation, very smart men and successful presidents, but their speaking styles and mannerisms were the subject of much popular humor at the time. Bush's reputation, eventually, will be based on things that really matter, and not on his weakness as a orator.

But still ... he could do so much better than he's doing. He doesn't help himself much out there. I don't understand why people who have in the past cited Ronald Reagan as a "great communicator" would suddenly decide that oratory is insignificant.

I think most people, if honest, will admit public speaking is not bush's strong suit.
What it comes down to is that some people who don't like bush will overly harp on that, and some people who like bush will overly defend that.

but I think, to call a spade a spade, he has room for improvement. I felt his state of the union speech after 9/11 was excellent, and impressed me greatly. but he had a long time to practice it and it showed. He also felt a great deal of what he was saying, and that showed as well.
But before and since then, I think he is mainly a pedestrian level speaker...nothing spectacular, but not as flummoxed as people say.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but I think, to call a spade a spade, he has room for improvement. I felt his state of the union speech after 9/11 was excellent, and impressed me greatly. but he had a long time to practice it and it showed. He also felt a great deal of what he was saying, and that showed as well.
But before and since then, I think he is mainly a pedestrian level speaker...nothing spectacular, but not as flummoxed as people say.

Hm, interesting. I thought the 9/11 speech was one of the least inspiring and most disspassionate moments in presidential history, considering the magnitude of the moment. I always figured that people just projected their own powerful emotions on what was a singularly unmoving speech.

Obviously it's a simple question of tastes and where all of our hearts and minds were on that day. Everyone had a personal experience at that moment and I'm as baffled by yours as I'm sure you are at mine.

Quite a thing, the human mind, eh? Hell of heaven, heaven of hell....

Just thought I'd offer my experience as a contrast. Not trying to tell you you didn't feel what you felt or that it wasn't in the air or something.

Just find the range of experiences to be very very interesting

[zigzag]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hm, interesting. I thought the 9/11 speech was one of the least inspiring and most disspassionate moments in presidential history, considering the magnitude of the moment.

Are you referring to the very first speech, the speech a day or so later, or the State of the Union?

The very first speech after the attacks was, even by the admission of his own staff, horrible, worse than a deer caught in the headlights. The next speech was much better. I don't remember much about the SOTU speech, which was a few months after that.

[OAW]

Given the fact that an entire industry has emerged detailing the plethora of "Bushisms" that have come forth from the mouth of our good President, I contend that the man does not have the firmest of grasps on the English language. Of course, this assessment is only based upon his speaking in public situations since I (and likely no one else on this board) has heard him speak in an "informal" or "one on one" situation. Typically his public speeches are scripted, which isn't an indictment in and of itself because all Presidents have speech writers. However, this president seems utterly incapable of extemporaneous speaking.

Having said that, what I find "amusing" is how the more conservative/right wing among us fall all over themselves making excuses for Bush's poor command of the language and his intelligence level in general. I've heard numerous callers to conservative talk radio shows and various conservative commentators on Fox News Channel actually make statements along the line of ....

"Well you don't have to be super smart to be President. You just need to surround yourself with good smart people."

Of course, these are the very same people who are constantly on a soapbox advocating that educational/employment opportunity and advancement should be based upon merit! In other words, if you want to be admitted to the Michigan Law School or be promoted in the local fire department you have to have the highest test scores. OTOH, if you want to be President of the United States the fact that you had an academic record that was marginal at best (a "C" average by all reports) and presently have a "less than stellar" command of the English language is quite alright .... as long as you are wealthy and espouse a conservative ideology!

As the dearly departed Mr. Rogers would put it ...

"Can you say HYPOCRISY? I knew you could."

One more thing about Bush ...

I personally can't stand the way man pronounces words with the letter "S" in them. For example, he uses the word "risks" a lot given the situation with Iraq. Unfortunately, the man over-enunciates the letter "S" to the point that it sounds like he's hissing at you! But hey, maybe I'm the only one who notices that!

As far as Clinton is concerned, anyone who doesn't recognize that he is light-years ahead of Bush in the area of public-speaking and charisma is obviously ingesting various controlled substances. Regardless of what one thinks about his politics or his personal character, the man simply blows Bush away in this arena. Furthermore, the entire "Lewinsky" scandal was simply stupid and a utter waste of tax payers dollars. The more conservative among us love to claim that the issue was that he "lied under oath". IMO on some things he did, and on others he skillfully protected himself without legally lying. But all of that is beside the point! The point is that as far as the majority of Americans and others around the globe were concerned ... he should never have been asked the question in the first place! Why? Because it was irrelevant to anything the public cared about! It certainly had nothing to do with the Whitewater Investigation ... you know that little thing that Starr was supposed to be investigating?

The bottom line is that the conservatives were out to get Clinton cause they simply hated the man (in fact, they still obsess over the man and his wife to this day for some strange and unknown reason) .... and Clinton was dumb enough to give them the ammunition.

OAW

[wdlove]

I would give George Bush a 90% for his performance last night. He has truly earned his stripes as president. "My job is to protect the American people." He believes in what he says.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Are you referring to the very first speech, the speech a day or so later, or the State of the Union?

The very first speech after the attacks was, even by the admission of his own staff, horrible, worse than a deer caught in the headlights. The next speech was much better. I don't remember much about the SOTU speech, which was a few months after that.

The 9/11 speech, the one right after the attacks. Awful.

I don't remember the SOTU speech after that.

His most recent SOTU was probably his best delivered speech. He flowed a lot better and really put it out there with some conviction (rather than merely concentrating on not fouling it up). In that instance I remember thinking, "Hey, I think he's finally found his voice. He's finally found his rhythm."

For a while there seemed to be real effort on the part of the PR team to make him into some kind of Gary Cooper, straight-talkin guy. I thought it really backfired. He kept slipping into really bad colloquialism and "evildoers" garbage. Made him sound like a hick, rather than a down-to-earth guy.

Now's he's settled into a more down-to-earth but dignified approach that is working much better. Unfortunately, he's really started laying on the religious stuff pretty thick. I know that plays great with big chucks of the public, but it makes my skin crawl.

[Face Ache]

Clinton is making a fair living as a public speaker these days.

Can you imagine Bush doing that after his presidency?

Will anyone even care what he thinks once he's finished as president?

He could do the comedy circuit I suppose...

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Clinton is making a fair living as a public speaker these days.

Can you imagine Bush doing that after his presidency?

Will anyone even care what he thinks once he's finished as president?

He could do the comedy circuit I suppose...

Good point.

An interesting note is Clinton often talked off the top of his head... and didn't use the provided speach. Hence he makes a great speaker today.

Some say he won the office based on his ability to speak.

[tie]

I sometimes hope Bush is as dumb as he sounds.

For example, his comments on Mexico: "I don't expect there to be significant retribution from the government" if Mexico (a member of the UN Security Council) doesn't vote America's way. But there's "an interesting phenomena taking place here in America about the French . . . a backlash against the French, not stirred up by anybody except the people." ... "It's like saying are you going to be the president of the people who don't vote for you. Yes, I am. And there will be a certain sense of discipline, but I look for -- I expect Mexico to be with us."

How can we excuse him for threatening our allies, except by saying he doesn't know what he's talking about?

[3gg3]

Originally posted by OAW:
One more thing about Bush ...

I personally can't stand the way man pronounces words with the letter "S" in them. For example, he uses the word "risks" a lot given the situation with Iraq. Unfortunately, the man over-enunciates the letter "S" to the point that it sounds like he's hissing at you! But hey, maybe I'm the only one who notices that! OAW

I haven't noticed that, but can understand how disconcerting it must be to you. Something like being bolded at, in text. Like being barked at!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
On the contrary, I felt Clinton was a VERY charismatic speaker.

Sorry, That was what I was trying to say, reading back I can see how I worded it wrongly. Yes, Clinton was a charismatic speaker. So was David Koresh. That doesn't speak on how the personal is morally. A lot of charismatic speakers also like to muddy their waters to appear deep. Clinton did this sometimes.

You didn't like what he had to say, I take it, but he was able to not only deliver a speech well but speak extemporaneously, something which Bush seems incapable of.

All that matters is one gets ones point across. The president should have to act like a Rock Star to get respect.

In fact, Clinton's speechwriter's hated him because he was always going "off-script" but he was so good at it, it appeared transparent to the general public.

I have to completely disagree with you on this one, Zim.
Clinton could speak, and effectively.
Bush has spoken effectively, on occasion, but only when he was scripted and with a script he had time to study. I don't think even most republicans think he is a good speaker off the cuff.

Like I said, I agree Clinton was a charasmatic a lot of the time. I just think Bush is more straight to the point. And I can respect that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Hm, interesting. I thought the 9/11 speech was one of the least inspiring and most disspassionate moments in presidential history, considering the magnitude of the moment. I always figured that people just projected their own powerful emotions on what was a singularly unmoving speech.

Funny most people, even the press at the time disgarees with you.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Funny most people, even the press at the time disgarees with you.

No - his own people have acknowledged that the very first speech he made after the attacks was lousy. And it was. I just watched an interview with his very own speechwriter, who reiterated this and described the anxiety that set in as he and the rest of the staff watched. The next speech he made - about two days after the attacks - was much better, by all accounts.

[Zimphire]

*shrug* I from the people I talked to, said otherwise. I guess it's just a matter of opinion.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by OAW:
Given the fact that an entire industry....merit!....Michigan Law School.......local fire department.........highest test scores. OTOH, if you want to be President of the United States.......over-enunciates the letter "S" to the point that it sounds like he's hissing at you! But hey, maybe I'm the only one who notices that! .....light-years....controlled substances.....beside the point!.....he should never have been asked the question in the first place!...irrelevant......Whitewater Investigation.....supposed........hatedOAW

As annoying as Bush may be, he has nothing on you.


6 more years of Dubya coming your way.

You'll get a good feeling for what conservatives had to tolerate during the Clinton administration/impeachment/freakshow.

and I love it

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
*shrug* I from the people I talked to, said otherwise. I guess it's just a matter of opinion.

yes, but at some point there still should be an ability to objectively discern quality of something.
for example, if I didn't like jazz as a genre of music, I should still be able to tell that Miles Davis is good at it, and my neighbor's kid isn't.
I can recognize bad orators, even in my own party. I maybe wince more with them, and smirk more with members of the opposing party, but I can still tell the difference and not feel its an indictment of either one's policies to admit they aren't stellar orators.

In general, I lament the lost art of oratory in this country, and not just in politics. In broadcast journalism there is a vast wasteland. Most anchors, even on the national level, cannot speak extemporaneously without a teleprompter. Gone are the days of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Winston Churchill, Martin Luther King.
Why can't we have good oratory anymore? Is it that difficult? Is Jesse Jackson the best we got?

sad...really.

[RAzaRazor]

Jeez Spliff, did you have to quote the ENTIRE post?

Sad thing is that I was a republican and miserable during the Clinton years. I have taken a closer look at my true feeling about politics, and am now a democrat. So now, I am miserable during the Bush years as well.

I enjoyed Clinton's penis induced stupidity much more than Bush's cocaine induced stupidity.

Screw It! I'm moving to Canada!

[Zimphire]

Bush does coke?

[undotwa]

I don't like Mr Bush's way of speaking, or his speeches.

That is all.

[g. olson]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
He may sound like a dope sometimes, but unlike Clinton, at least he sounds a bit sincere.

Yes, I believe he truly is sincere. He sincerely believes what he says. That is what is so scary. How embarrassing is it that one of the key pieces of "evidence" presented by his administration regarding nuclear development in Iraq turns out to be a clever forgery (see Washington Post?) The damage our appointed President is doing to this great county's credibility and future is sincerely horrifying.

P.S. It would be very interesting to know who was behind this fabrication of evidence, and what their motives were. I am certain the Bin Ladens of this world want us to attack Iraq; it clearly serves their purposes.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
As annoying as Bush may be, he has nothing on you.
6 more years of Dubya coming your way.

Don't be so sure about the outcome of the election in 2004. Remember how polarized the divisions in the 2002 election were? Well, you ain't seen nothing yet. This next one is going to be worse. There are going to be even fewer people "on the fence" this election. The ones that are are more likely to say there's no candidate worth voting for and not bother.

In a way, all this talk about Bush's speech delivery style won't matter in the next election, because so much of the country has made up its mind already, whether to support their party's candidate or not to bother. Bush haters will hate him regardless of his flaws, and Bush supporters will ignore his flaws regardless of what they are. And much more of the country falls under one of these categories now as compared to the last election.