Playing the role of "Dumb Blond"

James Fallows writes an interesting article for the 7-8/04 issue of the Atlantic Monthly, noting that Pres. Bush "has been far more skillful in his debating career than is generally appreciated, and his successes in that realm put his widely noted lack of eloquence in a different light. During his career George Bush's speaking style has changed significantly. ... But his underlying approach to political communication has been constant -- and extremely effective."

Fallows watched "dozens of hours' worth" of Bush and John Kerry "in action." But he writes, "it was the hour in which Bush faced Ann Richards" in '94 "that I had to watch several times. The Bush on this tape was almost unrecognizable -- and not just because he looked different from the figure we are accustomed to in the White House. ... This Bush was eloquent. He spoke quickly and easily. He rattled off complicated sentences and brought them to the right grammatical conclusions. He mishandled a word or two ... but fewer than most people would in an hour's debate. More striking, he did not pause before forcing out big words, as he often does now, or invent mangled new ones."

"The man on the debate platform looked and sounded smart and in control" in '94. If you had to guess which of the two candidates had won the debate scholarship to college and was about to win the governorship, you would choose Bush." So the question is, what happened? Did Bush suddenly, like Algernon become stupid [again]?

I think Dubya is again much smarter than liberal Bush-haters give him credit for. He knows what people like, and that is a simple man with a clear vision. He appeals to what many Americans think he is "like them" and average by talking simply and having trouble with big words, especially foreign ones. By seeming dumb, Bush has made winning debates easy. Because no matter how good Gore (or Kerry) is/will be, Bush is still the mouse that can talk, and his performance is pretty good for a mouse.