It's the Stupidity, Stupid!
In a previous entry, I discussed my feelings about Bush’s awkward disastrous manner of communicating when the answers haven’t been scripted or written down for him. I feel then and currently feel now, that the President’s verbal skills and countless documented “misspeaks” are the least of our concerns. The President fumbles through discussion on policy, not because the English language fails him, but rather because knowledge about the specific topic does. Previous examples of this include both:
An answer to a reporter’s question regarding tribal sovereignty (audio: ) and trying to explain his own social security plan (audio & commentary by Mike Molloy: ).
Recently, Bush has taken his lack of knowledge to the street in very carefully orchestrated PR events to answer questions from Bush supporting Americans, just like you and me. Here are a couple of clips:
Question 1:
Question 2:
I’d like to underscore the two different aspects of how he discusses policy, because there is a strong distinction that needs to be understood. I have attempted to cite examples of each:
BEHAVIOR INDICATING POOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS (annoying, unprofessional, but not life endangering)
-The fact that you hear him “appreciate” every question he answers
-The stuttering
-Using terminology such as “duddunt” rather than “doesn’t”
-The hyperventilating-sounding laugh similar to that of a cat dying
BEHAVIOR INDICATING LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, DEPTH, OR COMPREHENSION:
-Cracking jokes several times throughout the answer to distract or entertain rather than provide insight
-An almost sheepish demeanor
-Deferring the answer to one of his secretaries when he should have some thoughts of his own
-Excessive, run-on answers that really don’t seem to address the issue or go anywhere
-Exhibiting behavior similar to when we were in high school and were covering our embarrassment for not knowing the answer when called on in class
Again, deferring to cabinet members for specific details of policy that are pertinent to the secretaries that oversee those particular issues is totally fine. But consider the fact that these questions are asking for basic comment from the leader of the free world on important issues, including prostitution, the plan for social security and laws governing civilian workers in Iraq.
I’m not sure about you, but I’d feel a little more comfortable about giving this guy the power to kill people and wipe out sovereign governments he didn’t like if he could field questions from college kids with a little more depth.
An answer to a reporter’s question regarding tribal sovereignty (audio: ) and trying to explain his own social security plan (audio & commentary by Mike Molloy: ).
Recently, Bush has taken his lack of knowledge to the street in very carefully orchestrated PR events to answer questions from Bush supporting Americans, just like you and me. Here are a couple of clips:
Question 1:
Question 2:
I’d like to underscore the two different aspects of how he discusses policy, because there is a strong distinction that needs to be understood. I have attempted to cite examples of each:
BEHAVIOR INDICATING POOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS (annoying, unprofessional, but not life endangering)
-The fact that you hear him “appreciate” every question he answers
-The stuttering
-Using terminology such as “duddunt” rather than “doesn’t”
-The hyperventilating-sounding laugh similar to that of a cat dying
BEHAVIOR INDICATING LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, DEPTH, OR COMPREHENSION:
-Cracking jokes several times throughout the answer to distract or entertain rather than provide insight
-An almost sheepish demeanor
-Deferring the answer to one of his secretaries when he should have some thoughts of his own
-Excessive, run-on answers that really don’t seem to address the issue or go anywhere
-Exhibiting behavior similar to when we were in high school and were covering our embarrassment for not knowing the answer when called on in class
Again, deferring to cabinet members for specific details of policy that are pertinent to the secretaries that oversee those particular issues is totally fine. But consider the fact that these questions are asking for basic comment from the leader of the free world on important issues, including prostitution, the plan for social security and laws governing civilian workers in Iraq.
I’m not sure about you, but I’d feel a little more comfortable about giving this guy the power to kill people and wipe out sovereign governments he didn’t like if he could field questions from college kids with a little more depth.
posted by Jeremy at 5:43 PM
6 Comments:
"Ya wanna buy some wooood"? Sorry. That one just lingers in my memory from the 2004 debates.
I think a lot of his awkwardness is rehearsed and deliberate aimed at detracting from his yale-brat rich boy image to play up the fake cowboy stuff.
EB, yet somehow, it's the non-profit working, grass routes organizing, 1982 Volvo driving liberals who get the "elitist" title. Give me a fucking break.
John, I totally forgot about that! That was a debate CLASSIC. Right up there with the 52 times he said, "it's hard work," and still one of the best ever, "he forgot Poland!" As if Kerry forgot to mention the one single missing link, world-dominating powerhouse country that approved of the war in Iraq. Poland.
Speaking of Poland, check out mags' site and note the name :-)
And that my friends is what you call a clear and concise assessment of the worst president in the history of the US. There is nothing funny or quaint or hokey about that!
I meant to add- very nice post! Exacting truth!
All these things drive me nuts and especially when he says, "in other words" and then talks down to his audience like they were five year kids. He feels he must dumb down the wording so those less intelligent than he is will understand. As if there are people who can dress themselves and attend a meeting while being less intelligent than he.
Post a Comment
<< Home