Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 10:35 AM 9/21/01 -0700, E. Shaun Russell wrote:
> >Two weeks ago, the average North American thought of
> >Bush as somewhat "stupid" and not good with words. I don't think we'll
> >hear *that* sentiment again.
> and Natasha mentioned `his focused and erudite speech'.
> I'm not carping here, but hey, I've watched THE WEST WING, and know a few
> pollies, and I'm pretty sure that Mr Bush did not write those words (he
> wouldn't have had time, apart from anything else). As Shaun notes, he did
> read it with considerable sincerity. Having that skill was part of the
> filter he went through to get the job, of course.
Well, every person has a preferred speaking style. If you have a
speechwriter (and Bush is certainly not the first to have such, Clinton
had four to six on staff at any one time), it is best if they write
speeches in the style that is most comfortable to your own speaking
Dubya is not a flowery or complex speaker. He doesn't philosophize or go
on melodramatic soliloquys. He has a particularly straightforward,
declarative method of speaking, and one can see that he generally will
trip over convoluted compound sentences, especially if he didn't write
them himself. WHile this does lend him to satirizing with 'See Dick
run.' parodies, it doesn't make him dumb either. We can't all be
shakespearian types, nor, as the last president shows, does such skill
make one a particularly good leader.
In the case at hand, he spent many hours with his preferred speechwriter
in developing this speech.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:56 MDT