As I scanned the "reviews" of the President's speech on Iraq, it suddenly struck me that Ronald Reagan was able to get his message through to the American people, despite the negative "filter" of the liberal main-street-media (msm), in large part because his communication skills were so well-honed by his acting and public relations careers.
President Bush actually described some rationales for the "surge" which made sense. He did so in such a stilted, stiff, and uninspiring way, however, that I doubt most Americans will remember anything of value from the speech, especially after the msm onslaught that is sure to come. Mr. Bush does not have the rhetorical skills which would allow him to make the articulate and persuasive arguments necessary to keep the American public behind him on the war. In fact, this has been a problem for him since the start.
Despite msm and left-wing critics claims to the contrary, Mr. Bush did always state that the Iraq war had numerous bases, not just weapons of mass-destruction (wmd). Unfortunately, I believe that the President's general inability to clearly articulate those complex arguments led to a decision to focus on the easy ("slam-dunk") wmd argument. This was not a problem of intellect, but a lack of rhetorical and communication skills.
Given the anti-GOP and anti-Conservative biases of the msm, a Republican contender for President has to be a forceful and articulate public speaker, or his/her message will be drowned out. To be successful, a GOP contender has to be be very able to reach out and connect with the public. Like Ronald Reagan, he/she will have to be able to go over or around the msm.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Another factor is the average American's inability to digest anything that doesn't come wrapped up in a two minute sound bite or have a punch line.
Post a Comment