Why Bush’s War College Speech Fell Flat -- Know Your Audience, Speak to Them

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 29 May, 2004 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Miss Marple]

NBC will break for a commercial when they enter the arena. Bet you cash money.

[ride the whirlwind]

I second what you said.
The day after the speech, Tony Blair was quoted as saying that the president's speech was well received abroad. I think Blair's words should carry a lot of weight as he has proven his allegiance to GWB in the wot.

[The Wizard]

They were listening to their Leader tell them serious stuff, not at a pep rally where you scream and yell....Come on CBB....you're so much better than this.....this is the first time I've ever seen you miss your mark, and the response here alone should get you to at least alter the title and the direction of your piece...

[oceanview]

If I were Bush - I'd go on all of them. I'd take it right to them. In 2000, he was on Oprah. I'd go on The View. Take the fight to the enemy - in this case, the enemy is the domestic media.

[PeterPrinciple]

"The first rule of public speaking is: Know your audience. The second rule is: Speak to the interests of your audience. "

Gore did a good job of this when speaking to moveon.org..............but the audience was more than moveon.

[Xenalyte]

About the Author: ... lawyer ...

That disqualifies him for being a human being.

You do know, Steplock, that Congressman Billybob IS John Armor?

[Lee'sGhost]

"You do know, Steplock, that Congressman Billybob IS John Armor?"

Snort.

[reformedliberal]

Put me in the column of those somewhat disappointed, but overall supportive of the aims of the speech. GWB was distracted, IMO. I don't think he deals well with having to tack at all. He likes a straight and steady course. I do not think the speech was a failure. I read reviews that included mothers of service people who were heartened by it, for example.

But, John: nothing in the universe is going to force the press to change. In their eyes, they ARE doing their job, which they believe is to get rid of all the Republicans in power, marginalize, divide and discourage us, suppress our vote and continue peeing down our backs and telling us it is raining.

[reformedliberal]

The first time I crossed swords with Kerry in a college debate in 1963, his goal was to score rhetorical points. He had neither the interest nor the capacity to see where his position would inevitably wind up. Other than more money and more wrinkles, he's the same failed guy.

---

This sums up what I always believe after listening (reluctantly) to F'n. There is always this tone of condescension in his ponderous and belabored phrases. Whenever anyone takes his actual words as a starting point and throws a question back at him, his only default is:"You aren't listening." Drives me crazy and I hit the mute button now whenever he appears.
Did you win in your college debates w/him? Just for the record.........

[Free_at_last_-2001]

Sorry, John, but this is not a helpful column. I think you are mistaken. - Agreed!

[finnman69]

I'm not wavering at all, it was just not the speech I was looking for. I want some fireside chat stuff for the nnevous nellies and the nandwringers. Bush is good talking straight and we need to see more of that. He can't let Kerry get his word out w/o being rebuteed.

Also,

I think things in Iraq will be very different by convention time. As will the economy.

[SpinyNorman]

:The first rule of public speaking is: Know your audience. The second rule is: Speak to the interests of your audience."

Well, that explains Gore's recent bout of projectile vomiting at the MoreOn.org meeting! Actually, he might have underplayed it a bit...

[Lance Romance]

I was just kidding about that Dick Morris comment.

I don't understand how a man so consistently wrong gets so much air time.

I see you are taking a bit of heat for your article. And I still stand by my previous comments since there was some "meat" to the speech.

However, Bush was in a tough situation. People supposedly wanted answers that were already available. The hand over date has been known for months now, so has the general make up of the Iraqi Governing Council.

And how do you answer the question "What are you going to do about the security situation?" since the answer is obvious "You respond to each situation and try to prevent the ones you can.". Good luck on the article.

[Sabertooth]

I think the speech was OK, if rather repetitive of earlier speeches, except for his oversell of the significance of the June 30 transition. Would that the transition on that date be seminal. It will not be alas. That's my judgment.

The speech wasn't terrible, though it was dull. First time I've fallen asleep during a GWB speech.

Agreed about the oversell of the transition. I also remain of the opinion that the President is more than a little Pollyannish about the long-term democratic prospects in Iraq, or most other Middle Eastern nations, but I understand that, as with Oslo, the West needs to go through the motions of the experiment to be convinced of its unviability.

I don't stand with those who think that a "failure" in Iraq would necessarily be disastrous. Whatever the outcome, the experiment will bring clarity.

[Gritty]

I think President Bush was speaking to his audience.

The audience was not the War College attendees, but the American People, Iraqis and others who have been beleaguered by the Liberal and Arab Medias which have made a dandy living out of hammering our policies.

In speaking, President Bush was probably somewhat successful in reaching that audience - for a short time. However, his speech will again be overwhelmed by the incessant propaganda and naysayers so he will have to say it again, and again, and again.

I enjoy "blood and guts" speeches. IMHO, President Bush is making a mistake by not doing enough of them. Instead, he seems to let his enemies set the tone and the agenda of the debate. But, he is not leading his present audience onto the beaches of Normandy tomorrow and this was not meant to be a true "rally the troops" speech. We need to be constantly reminded this is for the "long haul". However, he needs to speak more often, forcefully, using more specifics and history in his speeches.

He needs to constantly keep the vision before us all or it will become obscured in the bullshiite of the Liberals and our enemies (but, I repeat myself). That was what he was attempting to do here, and he did it with modest success. But, he needs to keep doing it, and doing it.

"Where there is no vision, the people perish" - Proverbs 29:18

[NCSteve]

I'm somewhat surprised you would decide to poke the Bush/GOP cheerleaders in the eye like this, but I commend you for the article.

There is only one thing wrong with your assertion of what Bush should have said: it would have been hypocritical. It is the political leadership's failure to have the stomach to deal with post-Saddam Iraq effectively that has brought us to this point. For Bush to throw such a harangue on his senior military would have lost him quite a bit of respect and caused them to at least mentally marginalize him as CinC. A speech such as Patton's should have been directed at the likes of Karl Rove, Condoleeza Rice, and most importantly, Colin Powell.

More to the point, Bush himself would do well to take some of Patton's rhetoric to his own heart. We need to either do the job in Iraq, and do it correctly, or get out. Neither Patton nor McArthur would have tolerated the current political climate of this conflict. Neither Patton nor McArthur would have engaged in the public humiliation of apologizing for Abu Ghraib while the scorched corpses of Americans were hung from bridges while cheering crowds of Arabs looked on.

[Congressman Billybob]

Please note that I said "experience." I didn't say, in fact said the opposite, that being a candidate for President turns the candidate into a capable public speaker. No one could ever win in this mass media era, running a campaign from his front porch like Taft or Dewey.

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

I wish I could say yes to your question, but I honestly do not remember. Our debates were Oxford-style. A question would be put before the House. Then there would be four speakers, two of them for the proposition, two against.

All speakers were allowed to challenge all other speakers on their facts and logic. The tough position was to speak last, because one had to summarize and deal with on the fly, all that had been said by the others.

Then at the end of the debate, the question would be put to the House, and majority vote would determine the outcome. Kerry and I were on opposite sides in the Union; he was a Liberal, I was a Conservative. I think I directly debated him only once, and I cannot recall either the subject or the House vote on that subject.

John / Billybob

[PISANO]

I havn't done a study but between the news media, talk show hosts, most pundits and internet sites, including FR, virtually EVERYTHING I read, or hear or see about GW is NEGATIVE. Everyday......Everywhere??

If he wins re-election I will be very surprised (happily) and wonder whether or not I have been hallucinating the past 18 months.

[NYC Republican]

I think things in Iraq will be very different by convention time. As will the economy

That's ominous, at least on the economic front. Things are going great... Are you expecting it to sour, or are you anticipating that the public's perception will fall more in line with the reality of the economic boom?