Elizabeth Spiers weighs in on last night’s debate:
Is Bush’s ability to stay on message largely the result of Bush’s inability to remember more than two or three catchphrases at once?
Elizabeth Spiers weighs in on last night’s debate:
Is Bush’s ability to stay on message largely the result of Bush’s inability to remember more than two or three catchphrases at once?
Hm -- my Legal writing teacher sent 'round a NYT column that says Bush's speeches are better written than Kerry's, insofar as they are better at getting Bush's idea(s) across to his audience -- which, one must concede, is the purpose of a speech.
Yeah, but it's "hard work" to avoid sending "mixed messages".
I'm just wondering, PG, what possible connection there could be between the quality of the writing in Bush's speeches and his performance during the times that he has to come up with the words himself.
We are all aware that presidents have people writing their speeches for them, aren't we?
I have forgotten why Kerry wants to be President, can anyone help?
One ought not assume that because a candidate has speechwriters that he does not have input on those speeches. See here, albeit from a biased source; Bush seems to be good at knowing how to make clear, punchy speeches. And apparently he was no more off-topic at the debate than John Kerry was; neither exhibited a great ability to answer a question that didn't fit with their pre-set talking points.
There's a school of thought that Kerry doesn't want to be president, actually.
maybe if Kerry could get past the fact that he was in Vietnam, he could answer a question or two.
if that little creep says
NUCULAR one more time
im gonna drive to the white house
and scream