Replies

1. I was drawing a direct correllation between Peach's evidence and her not being able to understand why Bush won't make his case based on her evidence.

For the record I believe a skillful communicator and effective leader would have done just that.

2. This has never been about the media. The 9/11 Commission doesn't believe it.

The 9/11 Commission is a circus sideshow and if they said the sky is blue, I'd go check. That having been said, "doesn't believe it" is false, this is being totally misreported. Don't believe the headlines.

Bush has used the bully pulpit. He has spoken about why we went to war with Iraq. He does go over the media's head... he did so again today.

This is all true. But he has been unsuccessful, and at times downright inept, when he has done so. I refer for example to the "press conference" he held recently (the one with all the "did you make a mistake?" questions). Or the interview with Diane Sawyer where his most memorable response was "what's the difference". These were unworthy, bumbling performances full of defensiveness, evasiveness, and flippancy, and surely failed to convince anyone who wasn't already convinced. A more skillful statesman and rhetoritician would have done better, that's all I'm saying.

Bush may not be a glib, scripted speaker, but he is able to get his point across.

Evidently not; look at any poll. Don't get me wrong, I'm on Bush's side, I believe in what he is doing. But he is most certainly not communicating well to the masses. It's not just a matter of not being a polished speaker. It's not knowing how to construct a persuasive, forceful argument for anything. This could be done with simple words; again Reagan is a great example.

I'm not even saying it's Bush's "fault" for not being a good communicator. He is how he is. It's just a shortcoming he has, which may bite him in November. Denying that the shortcoming exists serves no good purpose.

Heck, he's President... he was able to convey something.

LOL... if only that were good enough.

I don't think the President's communication is something the American people get all up in arms about. They recognize that he has integrity even if he does have a fractured syntax.

I agree. I am not saying the American people are "up in arms", and I do think they generally believe he has integrity.

What I am saying is that he fails as a communicator thus leaving his listeners with little confidence, or ammunition, to use against the constant media attacks. In other words his communication failures leave the typical person "undefended", their "immune system" weakened, against a neverending media assault on Bush's decisions, statements, etc., thus making a significant fraction of them easily swayed and likely to buy into "Bush is stupid" nonsense they see on late-night comedy shows or "Bush messed up" nonsense they read in Newsweek.

A better communicator would be able to "inoculate" more of the public against the media's propaganda, making them less easily swayed.

Ronald Reagan? come on... stay on topic.

I'm sorry, what do you think the "topic" is? The article is about Bush's ability to communicate as a President. If you don't believe Ronald Reagan is an appropriate example in this context, I don't know what is.

We are talking about the post I responded to...Not comparing Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.

Well, I *was* comparing Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. Hope that's ok....

You're right...no intelligence is "rock solid." The WMD are proof of that... but, after the WMD debacle, who can blame the President for not storming forward on the evidence of intelligence leaks...

I can. Even the WMD situation is not as Bush has allowed the media to paint it. The WMD were there too, yet Bush has allowed the idea "Saddam had no WMD" to stand.

When he does come forward, I think he will want to make sure that his evidence is as "rock solid as possible."

Of course he will... of course he will.

It's just that this will not help at all.

Believe me, I hope I'm wrong.