Bush's speeches are almost always eloquent, beautiful and forceful. And I don't minimize this. They reflect a president with a certain seriousness, taste and intelligence. (clinton's speeches, by contrast, were real snoozers, cloyingly self-reflective, rambling and banal.)
OTOH, because the informal, extemporaneous venue is not Bush's strong suit, Bush loses at least half of his bully pulpit before he even starts.
But my comments about the Bush failure to communicate goes beyond Bush, himself.
As far as I can tell, Bush has no 'rapid response team.' Rather than instantly refuting the Left's demagoguery, the Bush camp allows The Big Lie to take root, (a speedy process in this shallow sound-bite culture), to acquire a certain measure of credibility.
I sense that the Bushies naively believe because the truth is on their side, a robust, rapid response is unnecessary. One would have expected their current PR and electoral problems to have disabused them of this silly notion by now.
What do you mean by "naively" believing? Are you saying that they can't rely soley on the truth being on their side without publicizing that fact more, or are you saying that the truth is not on their side and they have to grease the gears of the spin-machine and compete with the Dems?