Talk Elections

Reagan...Bush41...Bush43

We went from one of the best and clearest speakers in American History...to a very mediocre speaker...to the poorest speaker to ever hold the office of President

This must stop.

The ability to give a good speech is not everything, but the inability to speak effectively means you lack the ability to lead this nation in the modern era.

You missed out Clinton - excellent orator. As one comedian said he could look you in the eye and say 'I am not here' and you'd believe him :)

US politics lacks a formal 'requirement' to be a good speaker or to think on your feet. In a confrontational system, such as the UK where party leaders trade insults each week you have to learn to be good at it or you just don't make it.

Having said that substance is still preferable to rhetoric. Bush unfortunately had neither.

GHW Bush was not a mediocre speaker.

no i didn't... the title of this thread relates to the last GOP presidents, not the Dems.

Obviously, Bush43 would have never become governor of Texas, much less President, if he wasn't the son of Bush41...so someone with such poor communication skills will probably never again rise to the office of President.

yeah, he was, and I also thought so at the time

Reagan was the best of all time maybe, until Obama came along.

The only fault Bush 1 had when it came to speaking was that he would say "well" (instead of "umm") as a way to fill in the void of silence when he paused to think.  Other than that, he was a well-spoken individual.

I would place Obama below Reagan and Clinton, but well above Bush41 and Bush43.

Hard for me to compare Reagan and Clinton because the times were so different.

I think Bush41 was an excellent speaker during the first GulfWar crisis...but other than that, he lacked conviction/direction and his communication was subpar.

Yeah, Obama is a great speaker, especially with his umms and uhhs.

Bush41 was definitely a mediocre speaker.  Obama is excellent.  Reagan was excellent.  Clinton was excellent.  Bush43 is a total joke.

good thread

Sorry, Obama is not an excellent speaker off the cuff.

shut up, schmuck.  this thread is not about Obama's ability to speak off the cuff.  It's about the oratorial skills of Republican Presidents.  Obama's outstanding abilities there only act to emphasize the lack of skills of the current white house resident.

Go to hell, 'tard.

Off the cuff, Clinton is clearly better than Obama, but noone delivers a prepared speech more impressively than Obama.

For the record I think the main strengths of both Reagan and Clinton oratorically, was their ability to connect with their audience. In this regard they were both superior to Obama. Where Obama reigns supreme is in giving a majestic speech that leaves everyone in awe. It's a different ballpark, really. Not saying that one is better than the other. Infact, I think the Clinton/Reagan style has got better endurance. I could potentially see people getting tired of Obamas grandiose speeches, which will also be tougher to do when he's the president and not the challenger.

As for the topic itself, I can't really argue with the view that Reagan was excellent, Bush41 mediocre and Bush43 the worst you can get.

I thought Obama's election night speech was good, but in the end it is all a bunch slogan's "Yes We Can" and "Hope".  He's not bringing anything new to the table.  Reagan, on the other hand, stated that the power of our ideas could win the cold war without a single shot, and we did.  Obama is so compromised in his thoughts, he'll be swept away by world events.

Exactly. Obama is still pretending like he's campaigning. It's time to get serious now and give specifics, not telling the American people the same old lines from the stump during your first press conference.

His victory speech had so much soaring rhetoric that it made no sense. Of was essentially the same speech he's given over and over again all year.

Knowing the general public, in their zombie nature, they'll at least let him get away with that crap for a year or two or until the media ever decides to say something negative about Obama.

I'm trying to recall Bush 41 speaking, but all I hear is Dana Carvey.

They probably will never attack him for fear of appearing racist. He could run this country into the ground and no one would say anything. Even then, Obama refuses to speak with anyone who opposes him, so any firm like Fox will be shut out for his time in office.

Ha!  Very interesting observation.  You may have found one of the more obvious lines of evidence of the devolution of the GOP, but I think that the party's slide is also manifested in other ways.  For example, take this picture from TIME magazine, 16 October 2006:

()

In case you can't quite make out the faces, it's Reagan, followed by a diminuitive Gingerich, then Lott, then Delay, and finally a little bitty Denny Hastert.  The story entitled "End of a Revolution" and it detailed how the exquisite political machinery that wins elections had begun to betray the Republican Party's platform.  Or at least its ideals (limited government, individual responsibility, and fiscal restraint.)  They make the case that one problem was that after the Republicans got into power, the system began to change them, not just the other way around.  But there were many other problems.  I know it's a little off your intended topic, but you may find the article worth a read, in your spare time.

Here's the cover from that same issue:

()

Obama's better on the stump, but Reagan and Clinton were much better off the cuff...

I'm not sure, if your speaking skills indicate you're just a "regular guy" like GWB's was obviously attempting to do, then it appeals to the anti-intellectualism present in many parts of the electorate - especially if you're running against professorial-speakers like Kerry and Gore.  It's better to be a folksy guy that you want to have a non-alcoholic beer with than a Gore-lite - you have to find your speaking niche.

and I laughed at the desperate straw-grabbing to attempt to label Obama as a bad speaker in this thread.  Obama's problem with speaking off-the-cuff is that he has to force himself to be less professorial than he knows the electorate wants, to go over his words in his head before he speaks them.  But as far as his actual speech talent - the guy actually wrote a fair number of his key speeches and delivered them with more stunning ability than any president in history, with the runner ups being Reagan and the runner-up candidate being Mr. Cross of Thorns William.

Obama is clearly where he is today (president-elect) because of his rhetorical talent, so dissing his speaking skills is particularly hilarious and needy.  Whatever he was doing sure seemed to work!  McCain was better at those [real] town-halls than Obama would have been, without a doubt.

Anyway, the real discussion is a good point, but I think jmfcst ignores the urgency of now for the Republican Party.  In the middle of a moderate identity crisis, more than ever the GOP needs someone that can articulate its "brand new" ideas to the electorate so that they can start, y'know, winning seats that aren't plagued by multiple sex scandals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html?hpid=topnews

Clinton and Reagan by far are the best communicators in recent times.   Reagan was so uplifting and reassuring.  Clinton is the best debater I've ever seen.

Bush 41 was just ok all around.  Bush 43 is very effective at scripted speeches, pretty much a disaster everywhere else.  Obama gives an awesome scripted speech, but stinks when off the cuff and is pretty good debater.

Several people have commented on Obama's weakness regarding unscripted moments, but I'm just not getting this.  I don't find his unscripted moments at all sub-par.  On the one hand, I recognize that it's important to be able to speak, "HELLOOOOO CLEVELAND.  WHO'S HIGH RIGHT NOW?  LEMME HEAR YA YELL!  IN AAAAAA."  Been there.  Done that.  ("Well, okay, we were in Boston, not Cleveland.  And most of our shows were weddings, bar-mitzvahs, birthdays, and one foreign student welcoming orientation event, but, yeah, when I was in college and grad school I was a singer, songwriter, and general frontman in various incarnations of local bands, and as the leadman, I was generally instructed not to use vulgar language or references to illegal activities by the people who hired us.  Still, I understand that venue.  That vibe.  That need to be able to rock the world of a bunch of dazed and confuzed teeners and tweeners intent on damaging their eardrums and getting stoned and laid before the night was done.  And not necessarily in that order.)   But we're not electing the next Elvis.  Or the next pope.  Or the next drinking buddy.  Are we?  We're electing the next Herbert Hoover.  (That guy got a bad wrap, y'all know that, don't you?  Roosevelt wouldn't have been re-elected in '32 if he'd been first elected in '28.  I hope people basically understand that.)  Anyway, we're electing a president to preside in times of crises.  And I hope we have come a long way since 1928.  I suspect we have.  The literacy rate is much higer, and so is the general living standard, so there's no reason to to think that we can't appreciate a subdued, thoughtful style.  I appreciate it.  Then again, I'm not quite young enough to have been born with a video game control device in one hand and a mobile phone in the other, so I'm not sure if I can speak for Generation Wired.  Still, whomever I speak for--namely myself--I find Obama's unscripted moments enlightening, lucid, and informative.  Obama, like Hoover, isn't all that inspirational off-the-cuff, but then, the times aren't that inspirational either, are they?  Obama does, however, seem to have a decent grasp of the history of the office, and of the facts that confront him.  He's not an entertainer the way Bush was, or the way Clinton was.  But he's inspirational nevertheless.  Of course he's no Jay Leno, but then I wouldn't want to hire Jay Leno as the Commander-in-Chief of the armed services, or the next appointer of the federal judiciary.  So I don't hold it against him that he doesn't constantly entertain and enthrall me.