I don't know what to make of Bush's soundbites.
 

Now, I know what all the Bush nay-sayers think about his public speeches and whatnot, but I wonder what his supporters think. I mean, every single soundbite I am presented with.. by radio, television or internet, sounds like some archaic storytelling that you'd find in some fantasy novel as the elder is addressing his public to be on guard against a dire evil. A great evil lurks among us. They hate us and want to destroy us.

And on top of that all, there is no substance.. it's all the same thing. Over and over.

Some would call it fearmongering, but I question if these words even affect people. And if they don't, why is he speaking? How does the public respond to "these people are against our way of life and will stop at nothing to see our end." Now I consider myself a fairly intelligent individual and I hear these words and I feel like GWB must have just stepped out of Bill and Ted's phone booth right before he makes his speeches.

Please, someone give me the pro-Bush take on these harrowing words that seek to alert the masses of the grave danger that lurks. SHOULD I take up my pitchfork, or leave it in the shed?

Bush isn't fearmongering when he ways that there are Islamic extremists that are hellbent on destroying our country and our way of life. So, in a purely factual sense, what he is saying seems true enough. His rhetorical excesses (or terrible speaking style, if you prefer) does not appeal to people who follow politics, such as you and I. However, I would guess that there is a large demographic that is profoundly affected by the way in which Bush speaks about "evil" and "destruction", etc.

My conclusion, then, is that Bush is doing a poor job of articulating the true claim that we are undergoing a clash of civilizations that threatens the fundamental values of ours. Then again, some of the values Bush espouses have a similar effect of a much lesser scale... I would put the pitchfork by your bedside... just in case.

Anybody ever see Will Ferrell do the GWB impression on SNL? Probably some of his best work.

As for the fear mongering. Meh, whatever, there is definitely truth to it, a lot of it is politicking, but I really don't take it too much to heart, that's probably me being a lazy apathetic American.

His words do not persuade me. He simply says things I agree with most of the time.

I thought we should have marched into Baghdad in '91. Everytime Sadaam failed to cooperate with the UN over the years, I thought we should have gone in there with military force. I knew we were at war with Islamic extremist when Clinto was President, and I wanted him to send a stronger message with our military.

I thought taxes should have been cut long before I knew Bush Jr. existed.

I thought social security should be privatized 20 years ago, when I was 25 and never thought I would see a social security check.

He speaks with clarity. I still don't know what Kerry's position is on the war in Iraq, do you?

Well he is for it. Except when he is against it

And that is the main thing that kept me from trying harder to see where Kerry stood on issues. He seemed to flip-flop. waffle, straddle the fence or whatever you choose to describe his inability to take a firm stand on anything. While I think any politician be they Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc. may "take a position" based on what advisors and aides tell them, I like to at least have the illusion that they have a belief system in place.

But back to the topic, Bush has provided a great deal of material for the Stewarts, Lettermans and Lenos. Last night Letterman had a prime example od Bush getting befuddled and confused. Comedians and an ever more biased media will always look to exploit a politician's embarrassments be they mannerisms or choices of interns.

That is the job of comedians though. They are supposed to poke fun.

I don't really see why you need to bring up Kerry. Who gives a fuck about him. Yesterday's news.

As I see Bush, I'm with Halx on this... I just don't get it. I can say pretty asuredly that a politician that spoke like him would get laughed off the canadian political stage. He is either condescending or an idiot depending on what you think of him (perhaps both if you think he is just a mouth piece for Rove).

Why don't you believe Bush says what he means? On one hand we agree he is not a good public speaker but then you think he could be a mouth peice. Doesn't add up. If Rove or anyone else wanted a mouth piece why wouldn't they get someone who was good at it?

Being good at being a mouthpiece and being good at public speaking are not necessarily the same thing, although they often are. George W. Bush has never taught me a damn thing about politics, primarily because your typical well-informed citizen knows more about politics than our current president. That being said, however, Bush is very appealing to a lot of folks that can't understand the articles in National Review. He is able to talk about hotbutton issues in oversimplified terms that everyone can understand. In this way, perhaps Bush would make a better mouthpiece than many give him credit for.

The ultimate source of Halx's confusion is that Bush's message style is not intended for him: 100,000,000 Americans voted in 2004, but there are not 100,000,000 Americans who are well-informed about politics. Read between the lines...

I think I agree with you politicophile...

In my opinion, if he *is* a mouthpiece, he's the best one for the job in America. He speaks to middle America like nobody's business.

And if he isn't a mouthpiece, he is talking down to people with his approach. I find it hard to believe anyone with a big education and smarts, could be that folksy. Perhaps I am wrong.

Bush is not an idiot, nor is he deep thinker. He's never claimed to be a genius, and his office doesn't require it. If it did Jimmy Carter would have been a great president instead of the national disgrace he turned out to be. George Bush is a man who understands the one or two Big Issues of our time, and about those issues he is absolutely certain-- all the ripping of robes and throwing of ashes in the world will not change his mind. Does it matter that he can't seem to put two words together that make sense? Look, President Clinton could talk the pants off of the Queen, but you couldn't believe a word he said. President Bush has the vocabulary and syntax of a seventh grader, but when he says he's about to take action, everyone knows he means it.

I've noticed it too. Liitle has changed during his years as president in his speeches. I'm not implying that their intentions are the same, but it is amusing to point out a ressemblance with Big Brother from 1984.
I wonder if the people who write Bush's speeches are geniuses..using the strong terms like evil, terror, destruction...I mean, it sounds like a church sermon against unholy things. Maybe it unconciously strongly moves that part of the population, the christian americans in red states.

I'm not a Bush supporter but I'll take a stab at this and see if I can articulate this in an objective manner.

In a sense I'm going to agree with politicophile in that his aim is to keep his message as simple as possible. Most people do not understand nor do they want to understand the complexities of issues. They want to know in the simplest terms possible what the problem is and what is going to be done to fix it.

Bush is good at setting problems in their simplest terms possible. It could be that as a self-proclaimed non-intellectual, he himself doesn't care to see the complexities of issues. The one thing I will say about Bush is that he is a man of actions, not words. Believing himself to be a man of action, he doesn't see the necessity in delving into the nuances of the issues he believes affects us the most.

I view his soundbites as akin to rote memorization of multiplication facts. Understanding WHY 3x4=12 matters less than KNOWING that 3x4=12. In this manner, Bush doesn't feel the need to explain to us the whys. He believes that all we need to know is what the problem is and what he intends on doing about it.

Yes because terrorists who target citizens or regimes that stiffle freedoms and kill dissidents aren't evil, it's their path, it's not evil, it's grey; for that matter it's everyone's fault but their own, after all WE must've done something to bring this on ourselves, self hate and deprecation.

Say what you will, but I can at least respect a man who takes a stand, and who will call a spade a spade.

You know, this stuff about Bush appealing to middle America is totally dead on.

A buddy of mine, a 60-something construction guy, a smart, hard-working, self-made businessman, told me he likes Bush because "He's like me". Well, shit, George W Bush couldn't possibly be LESS like him. But somehow what he says and how he says it communicates to people a sort of understanding. He speaks to their fears and concerns and hopes, or something.

By the end of our previous Mayor's final term, he had become a joke due to his constant state of befuddlement and boneheaded speaking style. He was also ill and rarely present in chambers. And yet, during the following election, many were still willing to vote for him because he was "feisty", and a "regular guy".

This perception, coupled with "man of action" is what Bush has succeeded on from the beginning, and what his speaking style serves so well.

That's a great example Fresnelly... Mayor Mel and Bush are cut from the same cloth.

Umm, yes he is. Otherwise we'd have a lot more than two attacks that happened in the last, well forever.

It amazes me when anyone feels a politician is 'like them' How many rich frat boys whose daddies were always able to clean up their messes are out there?

Have you been following recent developments: the Sadaam recorded conversations; his former general in the airforce on WMD? Seems to me like Sadaam was in fact up to no good.

I think Bush goes beyond getting a message across. That could be done by a simple briefing, using precise wording and much more.. ehh.. responsible body language and tone of voice. As it is now, the storytelling approach that he uses appears to either be for extra effect, or like Charlatan says, "Y'all don't un'nerstand" type explanation.

In any case, the question still remains.. and I suppose it would be hard for the average person on the TFP to answer - does it work?

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/...dbluelarge.png
I'd say it's been more successful that I ever would have imagined.

2004 Election Popular Votes

Bush
62,040,606 51% 286

Democratic Kerry
59,028,109 48% 252

Not the landslide you'd purport.

And from the Detroit Free Press, 7 hours ago..

President George W. Bush's job approval rating hit 34%, according to a poll published Tuesday. It was the lowest since he took office in 2001 and 8 points lower than in January.

Maybe it's not working as well as you think?

Simplistic language will always work on the masses. However, I will always prefer someone who can communicate an idea to me and discuss ALL of the positions available to someone who says "We're gunna do it, ya'll.." and stays convicted, no matter the surmounting evidence for the opposing position. (Bush)

So no, it doesn't work on me. In the least.

You have greatly misunderstood my post. Halx (a.k.a. fearless leader) asked if Bush's "Y'all don't un'nerstand" type explanation worked. It obviously has enjoyed some success over the past 6 years. Now we all know his approval rating is low, but he has been using the same good ol boy strategy since day one. People loved Forest Gump, and people love George W. Bush (I apologize to Forest Gump fans for making that comparison). If you think for a second it's worked on me, you might want to read some of my past posts (linking King George the Dubbuyuh to terrorism, assasination, colusion with enemies of the US, treason, war crimes, talking like a muppet, and general dumbfuckery). I am willing to face the realty, however, that Bush has had some success with his good ol boy strategy. Denying that is denying reality.

Every politician gets away with too much fake crap. I can't begin to count how many times I heard some jackass on talk radio give the 'I like Bush because he looks you in the eye and gives a good handshake. It lets you know who he is' I'd hear that and want to puke.

This goes way beyond politics, but it's amazing how much importance people put into things like looking you in the eye, handshakes, and clothes. It doesn't tell you shit about the actual person but those simple things have such an effect on impressions.

Two attacks?

1. Iranian hostage crisis
2. Beirut barracks bombing
3. World Trade Center bombing
4. U.S.S. Cole bombing
5. African Embassy bombings
6. World Trade Center collapse/Pentagon attack/Pennsylvania field crash
7. Foiled Los Angeles hijack plot of 2002
8. Madrid train attack
9. London subway/bus attack
10. Failed second London subway/bus attack

That's off the top of my head. No doubt, I have forgotten some of them.

Your point still stands: Bush's talk about the danger of Islamic Extremism doesn't work on people who can't even remember the large number of conflicts we have had with people who adhere to that ideology. Honestly, though, 9/11 made it clear to everyone, even those who are totally ignorant of history, that Al Qaida and its associates are a threat to the United States.

This empirical fact has been used to good effect (exploited, if you prefer) by Bush to arouse public support for his platform. The Iraq War, the USA PATRIOT Act, the wiretaping, etc. were all possible because of his use of the entirely legitimate fear of Muslim extremists.

Take out the ones committed against foriegn countries, then remove the ones that happened outside of our borders, how many are left? Even if you keep them all in, that's 10 attacks over the last 30 or so years. Wow. If they are hellbent on destroying our country and our way of life, they sure haven't done much to prove it.

Do they hate America? Absolutely. I'm sure they will continue to at least attempt attacks here, hopefully, none will be successfull, but saying they are hellbent on destroying our country and our way of life is a blatant exaggeration.

Well, most people say they aren't affected by commercials either, but most of them are. They just don't know it and that's the beauty of it.
Similarly, no one is likely to hear Bush speak and get an epiphany that Iraq was the right thing to do. Nevertheless, his words do have a subliminal effect. Look at how many people believed Saddam was behind 9-11. Look at how many people voted for Bush believing he would be stronger on "terror" or that we would be hit again if Kerry was in power. For the most part, these weren't rational beliefs derived from careful study of each candidate's foreign policy and homeland security plans. It was based simply on rhetoric.

Bush sees no shades of gray -- it's either you're good or bad, with us or against us. Unfortunately this simplistic analysis is not terribly useful to understanding how the world works ... but apparently a lot of Americans buy into it.

true, but there is quite a bit more blue on that map today than in 2004. i don't have a state-by-state rundown, but i know that ongoing (hypothetical) bush v. kerry polls have turned around considerably. and this is kerry we're talking about.

bush has been speaking to improve public support for his policies. he may not have to get re-elected, but public support is still somewhat important. there are wishy-washy people in this country (2002 support for war vs. now), so it's probably not a bad idea for bush to try to re-convince the wavering. no one really knows what to do with iraq, so (even with tainted credibility) his ideas are as good as any. i guess we'll see if these speeches work in the coming weeks' polls.

I guess I don't see shades of gray either. But I did not "buy into it". To me it is clear, when any group/country says they will kill Americans, have killed Americans, and have declared war against my country, I can not see it as anything other than a real threat.

Who do you see as a threat:
1)Muslims
2)Iraqi insurgents
3)terrorists
4)anthrax
5)Iraqi WMDs
6)Non Christians
7)Communists
8)eroding of civil liberties
9)not trusting the president

First I saw Sadaam as a threat, more so than anything on your list. Because I saw him as a threat, I saw the power he had and those who support and supported him as a threat. I think we need to resolve the Iraqi insurgency. I think we need to make the "cost" of terrorist acts so high that terrorist see no further value in acts of terror, while at the same time increase the "benefit" of civil discourse so that everyone feels thier voice will be heard (i.e. moving toward democracy in the middle east). I think good Muslims need to take a stand against those who distort their religion.

I trust the president. He says what he believes.

I have never had dillusions about civil liberties in this country. Based on that I don't see civil liberties eroding. Historically governement in this country has always been too powerful.

I feel no threat from communists

I am not a Christian and I am not threatened by non-Christians.

As a rule I respect those who respect me. I also assume people are good and honest until they show otherwise.

Of course what Bush does works. Otherwise how could you possibly explain all those people still convinced the baddies hate Americans because of their way of life and want to blow them all up because their women wear tank-tops and are allowed to drive?

Considering these people are quite willing to strap several pounds of high explosives on themselves and turn themselves into confetti, how would you propose increasing the "cost" of their actions?

The 60 year old woman dressed in cardboard, professing to all subway travelers that she houses an experimental Martian colony in her rectum also says what she believes. Would you vote her into office as well?

Parents encourage children to die for their cause.
Religious leaders encourage their followers to die for their cause.
Political leaders encourage their followers to die for their cause.
Cowards encourage others to die for their cause.

We can increase the cost on those who encourage others to die.

The above in my opinion is apolitical and is true regardless if the person is a suicide bomber or a US soldier. Historically the winner in any conflict is usually the one who is able to impose a "cost" that the opponent is not willing to pay.


Bush says what he believes, and most of the time I agree. I think I posted that before. I would not believe or agree with the 60 year old woman in your example above. And, for example I did not think John Kerry was saying what he believed. So eventhough he put his word together better than Bush could ever do, I could never support Kerry.