Bushspeak

[OneBlueSky]

interesting and cautionary article in the New Yorker about Bush's "skills" as an orator . . . a perspective I certainly hadn't considered . . . but then, maybe the author's just full of shit . . . what say you? . . .

Bushspeak
The President's vernacular style.
by Philip Gourevitch
The New Yorker
September 13, 2004

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact1

(snip)

He is grossly underestimated as an orator by those who presume that good grammar, rigorous logic, and a solid command of the facts are the essential ingredients of political persuasion, and that the absence of these skills indicates a lack of intelligence. Although Bush is no intellectual, and proud of it, he is quick and clever, and, for all his notorious malapropisms, abuses of syntax, and manglings or reinventions of vocabulary, his intelligence is—if not especially literate—acutely verbal. His words, in transcription, might seem mindless, incoherent, or unintentionally hilarious (“I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family”; “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we”), but it is pretty plain what he means. “Even when we don’t agree, you know what I believe and where I stand,” he reminded the nation at Madison Square Garden, during his acceptance of the Republican nomination.

Bush’s top speechwriter, Michael Gerson, is regarded as a master of his trade. His speeches are composed of short, declarative sentences packed with substance. While John Kerry can speak rousingly for whole paragraphs without saying anything precise or concrete, Bush rarely puts ten words together in a major address without taking a position, passing a judgment, or proclaiming a purpose. He is less concise when unscripted, or—as on the stump—only loosely tethered to a text, but when he’s ad-libbing he makes up for whatever tightness he lacks with an emotional appeal, seeking and generally finding a level of connection to his supporters that eludes his rival entirely. Bush’s gift in this regard is a function of his lack of polish: the clipped nature of his phraseology, the touch of twang, the hard consonants, the nasal vowels, the dropped conjunctions and slurred or swallowed suffixes.

(snip)

Kicking ass is just his nature. And, while he had been effectively tied with or trailing his challenger all year, and still was behind on many issues and in many states, an early post-Convention poll showed him opening a national lead beyond the margin of error. Even so, both candidates must now recognize that neither of them inspires any great enthusiasm in a majority of the electorate. Neither can expect to win on his merits. Rather, for each the best hope is to make the other one lose—and, for the moment at least, Bush had succeeded in turning a referendum on himself into a referendum on the other guy.

- more . . .

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact1

[yardwork]

1. This is absolutely true.

Bush won't be defeated on the basis of his speaking style. Many Americans don't view it as a weakness.

Democrats need to hit Bush - again and again - for the LIES he tells.

[Skidmore]

2. And may I say,

puke.

[pretzel4gore]

3. the thing that stands out about Geebush is he's a milk fed goof

he maybe a genius at it but that don't change nothing...he's a peewee herman character

[kysrsoze]

4. Kicking ass is just his nature? I thought it was verbally attacking and

then running and hiding like the big pussy he is. He doesn't kick ass. The coward has other people like Cheney do his dirty work as he calls people names.