Posted on 01/17/2007 11:56:49 AM PST by JZelle
The rap on George W. Bush is that he can't make a rousing speech like Winston Churchill, and indeed he can't. But who can? Not Hillary, not "the husband of," not John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, or even Barack Obama, worthies all. Churchill marshaled the language and sent it off to World War II. He was sui generis, one of a kind, an orator who played rhetoric like Babe Ruth hit home runs and Brooks Robinson played third base. But Churchill, the electrifier of frightened audiences on both sides of the Atlantic, had an advantage that neither George W. nor the pretenders do. He had an audience wired to be electrified.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Carolyn
I believe at this time in progress it will be very difficult to have another Churchill type speech. People in this day and age are too use to sound bites and catchy phrases and would not take time to sit and listen to a stem winder.
Ronald Reagan was the great orator for me. After listening to him, I was ready to jump out of my chair and jump up and down and shout "Long live the Prez!" Pres. Bush came close to making me feel that way.
W's State of the Union Speech after 911 was not bad at all...
Best piece I've read in a while.
What is our exit strategy? Victory. Where is the politician who is prepared to say that, and mean it?
His 2004 convention speech was pretty good as well. Yes, the writers help a lot but watching him come to podium and talk I just "got it".
I don't care about speechs; I care about winning.
I think we ARE winning, but we have our own media working against us. With firepower like that on the enemy's side, no wonder we have a problem.
First thing Pres. Bush should have done is put in Wartime Censorship Rules. The media should have been drafted from day one - and anybody who didn't come on board should should have been put under the jail; their lawyers should still filing documents just to find out WHERE their clients are...
I hear that Hitler was a good speaker. I think, though, that you may want to look a little deeper in deciding who to vote for.
Bush has never been able to explain to the American people why Iraq fits into the war on terror. As a consequence, he has let himself get painted into the "Bush lied" about WMD corner.
And what did Churchill get as a reward for his brilliant leadership during the war...he was heavily defeated in the election of 1945.
Just because you have a Churchill doesn't mean he will be appreciated.
"I have waited 50 years to see the Boneless Wonder."
Behold the Republican Senator!
I too don't give a crap about speeches, I care about winning this War, too bad our leaders don't want to win.
"... without victory there is no survival."
Indeed.
This is even truer today, than it was then.
At that time, I wasn't a big fan of President Reagan, but whenever I'd listen to his speeches, but the end of them I was nodding my head in agreement! That's why he was called The Great Communicator! BTW, my viewpoints have changed since those days.
The Pres is to act rather than talk. That is leadership. Talk is cheap.
He was awesome. Pres Clinton is pretty good, too. So was Mao. So is Iammadjohn, Chavez, you name it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.