Bush's speech -- I'll be the first to admit... (page 3)

hawkaw

Seeker,

No Bush was Bush last night. You just bought into the "con" that Bush was weak. His handlers have always made him look "clumsy". The lame street press such as "Newsweak's" (note the "a") Howard Fineman and "PMSNBC's" Chris Mathews get caught up in it all and of course there is the spin coming out of the democratic party from "little Dicky" Gephart and the senator from South Dakota. With all of that in the air one sees and buys into the con about Bush being a weak and ineffective leader and of course he is toooo "conservative".

You must remember Ronald Regan. Same thing with him too. Now they make the guy out as one of the best all round presidents ever who saved the world from communism - which we know isn't quite true.

Quite frankly I found his speech similar to other state of the union addresses using the same old techniques Clinton and Regan used. Personally I think the speech Bush gave at the Chruch a week ago was 10 times better. He read from his papers rather than his telaprompter at that event. I find he delievers a "read" speech much better than a telaprompter speech.

The key about last nights speech - Bush bought some time. Period.

hawk

TheOldHippie

The cowboys ride again - out to kill the Indians of our age, the Moslems.

Seeker

Hawkaw,

No Bush was Bush last night. You just bought into the "con" that Bush was weak.

hehe, so if I think like you, I'm a clear thinker, but if I disagree with you, I've been conned. Yes, good argument there.

I haven't been conned. Give me credit for independent thinking. My view of Bush comes from his own mouth. This is the first time he's spoken where I felt he was in control. Every other time, he's appeared hesitant, unsure of himself. My opinion, not yours, but not "conned" by commentators either. Just my view of his own words when he speaks.

I did notice, early on last night, a trait I hadn't picked up on before: he tends to pause in the middle of the sentence, even where a comma doesn't belong. He'll say a few words...stop....catch his breath...say the rest of the sentence. Perhaps I've been subconsciously picking up on this extraneous pause and having that translate in my mind to "hesitant." Whatever it was, last night, after he got rolling and stopped doing that William Shatner pause, he sounded like a president. For the first time.

hawkaw

No seeker you missed my point. You are not independently thinking. If you were you wouldn't have liked his "good v. evil" comments because you should know black and white thinking when you see it. And you would have been asking just what the hell is America getting itself into here? What is the exit strategy? How are we going to fight them? Didn't Clinton declare war on them too? What are you doing different than Clinton? Are we going to use Nuclear weapons?

Bush was Bush last night - nothing better than usual. It was much typical of a state of the union with the classic people in the stands that he pointed to - Regan did it - it worked - and so Clinton and now his handlers to the same. You actually probably bought into the "badge" thing too I guess. His speech was just as good as the one he delivered to the joint congress a few months ago before the implementation of the tax cut laws.

Bush was much better a week ago in the church. Now that was a speech. I suspect you didn't see it. Did you see his speech to the RNC last year? I suspect not. Both were good too. Yet you only found this speech good.

Be honest with yourself and me - you don't follow his speeches much nor the administration.

Again the speech did one thing - buy him some time he needs.

hawk

Seeker

hawkaw,

Ah, I see your point. No, I hadn't heard those other speeches you mentioned. I can only comment on what I have knowledge of, and that is what I did.

You are not independently thinking.

Yes, I am.

If you were you wouldn't have liked his "good v. evil" comments because you should know black and white thinking when you see it.

I don't like such comments, that's true, but I was commenting more on his manner of speaking last night, not his words. His words were more of the same as he's been saying for the past week.

And you would have been asking just what the hell is America getting itself into here? What is the exit strategy? How are we going to fight them? Didn't Clinton declare war on them too? What are you doing different than Clinton? Are we going to use Nuclear weapons?

Yes, I have asked all of those questions, and I don't assume that the government will suddenly be smart about things. But this thread was about the way Bush spoke last night, and nothing else.

Utopian Reformist

Hawk:

I find you are "neatly" packaging and categorizing individual opinions about BUSH and his speech to fit your political paradigm.

You seem to have departed from disagreeing with the popular impression that BUSH delivered a much better performance than usual, and when challenged by an individual's tenacity for that inference, you segway into an analysis of the content; i.e. "what is America getting into" and "will we go nuclear".

Those are valid questions and deserve consideration, but the original subject centered around the public performance of the president, specifically his ability to deliver an oral message.

His performance was in fact better than usual, with only one instance of losing his place or fumbling near the end. The sentences were obviously brief, but the words were bold, and it contained enough cliches to satisfy current emotions.

If you want to examine and scrutinize the content, please begin.

hawkaw

Seeker,

I am sorry - I thought we were talking about the speech and not just his delivery. I take back my "indepentent thinking" comments that I said to you and apologize.

I do stand by my delivery comments and do not sway from them.

Utopian Reformist.

I again apologize to you and others on this board for changing the topic of this thread.

However, I disagree with you on the speech delivery. His speech was "not" better than usual. It was a typical usual speech from Bush. Nothing better and nothing worse. I have seen many a "dubya" speech and he delivers as per his handlers wishes. His best in this crisis so far was the one in the church last week and I again suspect that you, like seeker, did not see it. I also wonder if you ever saw his RNC speech as well. It was better too. Still no where near the likes of some of Clinton's speeches.

On a side line I am glad that you, seeker and U.R., are also thinking about questions I posed that do not relate to this thread topic though. I thought that I was the only one who was concerned about it. The one thing that kinda makes me worried is just what is a Terrorist to Bush. Do you notice he did not mention the Groups that held their meeting in Terran on an invitation form the Iranian government a few months ago. But he singles out a group in a former soviet republic. This all in the name of getting an air field close to Afkanistan.

hawk

idaho

I didn't get the whole speech but I reacted to his retoric

"either your for us [USA] or against us"

Is the issue for or against the USA? Isn't it for or against terrorism?

Although I'm an American citizen, and totally agree that the terrorism must be eliminated, I cannot accept Bush's generalism
and I except most Moslem countries feel the same.

By attacking the innocent to eliminate the guilty, the warlords in Washington will most certainly just create more hatred and the basis for more terrorism.

Finn

Darkchilde

Well, as long as we're admitting things, I'll admit that I was kinda-sorta watching pro wrestling during most of last night's speech. But yes, what I did see of it was delivered unusually well for him.

*Rochelle.

Seeker

I thought that I was the only one who was concerned about it.

Don't worry, you're not. In another thread, I've been ranting about Bush's unfocused 'I'm gonna rid the world of evil-doers' comment.

Bush's speech -- I'll be the first to admit...

Share this