I think that speeches like Bush's are definately more effective when watched on TV than read in the newspaper, but I don't think that he is a good speaker. I don't think anyone would read speeches like these if they were in the newspaper.

One thing that I noticed in Bush's speech is that there is a consistency to who we think Bush is and how he speaks. Jamieson says, "The pedestrian quality of Reagan's conversational style reduces the likelihood that the audience will ask whether he is speaking his own or someone else's words." (172) She goes on to explain, "By mispronouncing words (e.g. , technological) and placing stresses in surprising places (e.g. mis'management), Carter subtly uggested that he and his audience belonged to warring lingusitic communities." I think Bush effectively uses his pedestrian style to emphasize the idea that he is not one of "them" who think they can pull the wool over our eyes. He might not be the smartest guy in the room, but he lets the audience know that he's not going to be sneaky and out-manuever the public with his fancy words. I think that, however bad for democracy, is a useful way to garner the public and its mediocre education for support. A feeling of us versus them arises often in Bush's speeches. You can hang with the nerds, or the cool kids.

Athough I laughed in the beginning at the words "it's coming out of Michael Dell's car" I was embarrassed when he takes the two major jabs at Gore, embarrassed for not just Gore but Bush as well. He should be embarassed for being so terrible. I remember when I first heard this speech thinking how –if Bush was really bent on making fun of Gore-- that it was possible to do so in a more becoming way, if one was clever enough. There had to have been a way to get that same point across without looking like an asshole - am I wrong for expecting a bit of subtlety? The insults were too direct and obvious, but oddly enough I still had a hard time imagining that Bush was able to come up with even these simple insults himself. This does not seem like the kind of behavior that should sit well with the American public. It’s really kind of bullying.

If televised speeches are supposed to sell a candidate’s character, then this speech should have been a warning sign to the American public. What exactly happened?

I think it is entirely possible that television did not work in Bush's favor this time around when it comes to character. This is likely the speech that generated the moniker "smirking chimp".

On the other hand, when it comes to using speech/television to distract viewers from criticism I have to agree with what Peter said. The television does at least afford him a quick soundbyte that makes it appear that he somehow is more honorable than Gore when it comes to tax relief as well as more supportive of new technology without any corroborating evidence or proposed actions.

I agree with Jamieson in that it is definately more effective to see the speech than to read it, however I remain largely unconvinced that even with the medium of TV, people will remember GW as being an effective speaker. Jamieson seems to just point out the INCREDIBLY obvious point that media studies has already made for years and years and years now, that TV is a medium that allows the audience to be much less critical of information than print media and much more receptive to short memorable phrases and talking points raised in a familar conversational way so that the audiences may relate to the person standing in the middle of their living room.

Personally I find this to be an unarguable point.

Not really awesome, the links didn't work on my computer so I could only read the speech and listen to it in real player. BUT, what I did realize is the consistency between the two. I thought Bush sounded like an idiot in both. I heard Texas blah blah blah...Now I agree that Texas is awesome, but I fail to see the correlation between Texas being awesome and Bush being awesome. I still think that he rambles on and on, and then closes the paragraph with a catchy funny tag line that makes people chuckle and clap. They forget that he was merely bullshitting for the rest of the time. I also like how he criticized Gore for wanting to decide about tax cuts and decide where the money goes. But what I want to know is how is Bush any different? "Let's see I'll give tax cuts to my rich friends, start a war that costs $200 billion, and not hold myself accountable when I mess up and drag the country into a deeper deficit and bring down the US. Sorry, as you can tell I hate Bush. so maybe I am biased, and maybe I'm disadvataged cause the link wouldn't allow me to see the video, but something tells me that I would still feel that Bush is an idiot even if I had the video feed to go along with my printed script and audio clip. Peace Out Homies.

While reading the stump speech I couldn't help but feel that it lacked a necessary structure. The speech seemed to be a mere assortment of statements that are not necessarily directly related. However, when i saw the speech, it did come off more as a sort of cadence form of speech that I wasn't reading to myself in my head. He seemed to be listing items that either bothered him or that he would change as president.

I tried just listening to it as well, and that worked better than reading the speach as well. His pauses, despite sometimes making him seem slow, are effective in making a reader digest what he's said, if only during the moment. Reading the text on the other hand is about as much fun as stabbing myself in the eye with a fork, which is to say, excruciatingly painful.

When i read Bush's speech. I found the sentences to be fairly simple and incomplex: "This is not to say government doesn't have a place in our new economy. It can take the side of innovation, creating an environment where entrepreneurs can flourish. It can help all to share in the opportunity that innovation brings. It's been our goal in the state of Texas." Three of the four sentences begin with "It" and though these sentences could be combined to form complex sentences, they are not. i guess that's the "C- student who sat behind you in eighth grade" kind of example mentioned in the prompt. And of course, upon reading the speech I caught the grammatical error: "There's no right people or wrong people in America." which was incredibly distracting. i suppose that could be the intentional stereotyped texan talk that we all love so much. "According to [Jameison] we would not be so impressed" if we were, as we are, intellectuals rating the writing with the high standards we'd place when reading and analyzing any other written text. However, the way the speech is written is great for that C- student in eight grade who has a higher comprehension of the words than some citizens in America.
As for the video of the speech, i found it to run along the same lines of my initial thoughts when reading it. I did find i added more vocal ups and downs in my head than did the president, who spoke with a slow, low, fairly monotonous tone. again, though, that kind of speech is good for those C- students and not so impressive or effective to the rest of us. Bush also made a characteristical awkward pause before he said car: "It came out of places like Michael Dell's...(weird awkard pause that lessens his intelligence and credibility)...car."
Was i impressed? not really. his voice didn't really rise much or have much enthusiasm, so i didn't get why people applauded when they did. I found the written speech was a little more acceptable. But still, not that intelligent or effectual.