Comments on: King George’s Speechification

By: Johnny Bender

Johnny Bender — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:44:00 +0000

It’s a mix of condescension and talking to someone retarded probably because that’s how Dubya heard people speak to him!

I recall how someone in the administration (Powell?) was admonished to remain “monotonously on message”, and it’s clear that’s expected of all of them who don’t want to be “un-Amurkin.”

By: oyster

oyster — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:28:41 +0000

I read the Atlantic article– it centered on debates, not speeches, and pointed out that Bush mainly benefits from setting expectations so low he can’t help but surpass them.

By: Becky

Becky — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 14:35:11 +0000

Bush’s style flies all over me. It is a mix of condescension and talking to someone who is retarded. He drops his voice much as you would when you think someone can’t understand you. He sounds over rehearsed and without emotional investment. The little catchphrases fall flat. It is obvious he does not respect the listener. Another problem is that everyone is so on message you hear the same phrases from all the administration officials and the conservative media. How many times did you hear the word “appeasement” right after the Spanish election? The overuse of words and phrases dilutes the message instead of intensifying it.

By: JoeW

JoeW — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 19:55:03 +0000

On the contrary, everyone should read the newest issue of the official magazine of soft facism, The Atlantic Monthly. James Fallows wrote a very intresting article on Bush’s speaking abilities that will overtunr your conception of the man. Attempting to explain it here would be pointless, except to say that he presents a lot of evidence that Bush is (or has been) a great speaker, and that his current speechifying is something of a pose. Well, read the article.

By: oyster

oyster — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 01:55:25 +0000

The speech given on the evening of 9/11 was one of the shakiest and least convincing speeches I’d ever seen. I was literally talking to the TV before he started: “C’mon George, I’m rooting for you. Say that thing we need to hear…” Didn’t happen; no one remembers that speech, except for the proposition (almost immediately broken) that we will make “no distinction” between terrorists and countries that harbor them. Going from memory, I believe his speech a few days afterwards was the one that everyone remembers. I think, also, that Karen Hughes announced she’d be leaving the administration between those speeches. Perhaps she had a lot of input in the first one, it sucked, and someone else took thematic control.

I’ve been highly impressed with the speeches written for Bush– imagine that job for a moment. Several have been legitimately great, as far as texts go. (His speech on democracy in the middle east is one example.) They only sound like an empty attempt at something historic and memorable when Bush invariably fumbles the delivery.

Without a prepared text the man is an utterly hopeless embarassment.

By: E-Rock

E-Rock — Sat, 12 Jun 2004 00:54:41 +0000

The speech was that good. I think he also had one other good speech, but I don’t remember which one. George’s problem is that he is hamstrung by passive voice. Remember how much you hated teachers’ harping on passive voice? Listen to a Bush speech, and you’ll understand why they went to so much trouble. I wonder if the problem is that his speechwriters are attempting to compensate for what they percieve to be a Bush weakness in public speaking.