"As a "leader" in his position, he should be able to motivate and stir the passions of "the masses." The only passion he stirs is the world's anger."
Generally, I would assume the masses refers to those of the state that the leader leads. The term "leader of the free world is not literal," though I understand its significance. He is not obligated to impress the world. Also, I doubt poor speech is what angers the world. I believe it is more of an annoyance than anything else.
"Listening to recordings of other presidents and/or great leaders makes me feel sorta ripped off. It seems that the days of great oratory, of using speech to accomplish goals through a population, are sadly over. The FDR's and Chruchills and and Lincoln's are a memory. Now it is acceptable for a president to speak coloquialisms and make up non-sensical sylables."
I share your feeling to some extent, but it may be Bush's errors which are part of his popularity. I doubt many people can speak like Orson Welles could. The policy is more important than the speech meant to sell it. Granted, a speech needs to be good, but simple terms can go over very well. What is important is to know your audience.
"Sometimes I watch British Parliment on CSPAN or some cable news channel. Those guys can speak. They have a strong vocabulary and say things in a clear, concise, yet not abbreviated manner. They have mastered the subtleties of their language to shade their statements and mean exactly wht they are saying."
They are also better educated than us. And as far as the British House of Commons goes, I, too, have seen some of it. And I prefer the US style, where the elected officials are less confrontational and apt to inserting their boos and yays. Albeit that it is less exciting, but the time given to the officials, being long as it is (too long), means a better understanding of the subject. The only consistent show on C-SPAN that I know of is the Wednesday meeting where Tony Blair is asked questions. And, as implied before, I prefer the US style for information, the British for entertainment. By entertainment I do not mean to cheapen the system, I mean it in the positive sense.
"You just don't get a lot of that in America. In fact, in America you are almost looked down upon for being a good speaker. Just look at some of the crap people post here... totally incomprehensible garbage. And these people should be able to string a sentence together. They're not six year olds. But sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking."
I have dealt with complaints about how I address people. You cannot win. Either you will sound like a showoff or a moron; the audience decides.
"Of course this only matters to those for whom thinking is valuable."
I try.
"Bush's Bushisms and botched English make us all look bad."
Yes and no. If someone in, say, Finland is judging us based on the speaking skills of Bush, not even reasonably disputing his policies, that says something about the Finnish person, does it not?
?
