Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

His cowboy reputation has less to do with his accent (I wouldn't
recognize a Texas accent anyway) than with the geeky, unworldly
style of his rethoric. To most Europeans the notion that someone
could give speeches like that and take himself seriously is past
belief. European leaders who have met George W. actually praise
him as an intelligent and charming interlocutor, so one must assume
that he does it on purpose...

GW clearly isn't a wordsmith, and delivery is very unsophisticated
for a politico. But he comes across to me as "honest" in intent
(contrary to his predecessor, who was very smooth talking and had a
great delivery).

Bush reminds me a bit more like Truman, who also was not an
especially exciting public speaker, especially when compared with
his predecessor.

I too have read and heard that GW comes across much more favorably
one-on-one, than in a "speech" setting.

It's just natural capability or lack thereof. I don't think he's
being purposely inarticulate or unenthusiastic when he speaks.

Didn't Churchill always have detailed notes as to what he was going
to say in a speech? Weren't some of his stammers during speeches
there by design as well? I read or heard somewhere that he might
spend 4 hours in preparation for a speech for every hour of delivery.

In any case, Churchill was clearly a brilliant speech deliverer. GW
simply isn't.


SMH