Would You Hire This Man To Run Your Company -- Let Alone The Country?

[Knockwurst]

I would think that one of the basic job requirements of the president (CEO) of any company, let alone the POTUS, is the ability to speak intelligently and cogently on topics of importance to the shareholders or voters. An inability to articulate one's policies calls into question the capability to effectuate those policies. Just as we would expect the CEO of a company to express his policies with a modicum of speaking skills, shouldn't it give us pause when the POTUS is unable to do so? An article for your consideration:


Reprising a War With Words


By Dana Milbank

Tuesday, August 17, 2004; Page A13


Earlier this month, President Bush was almost done with a speech to a group of minority journalists when he dropped a rather startling proposal.

"We actually misnamed the war on terror," he said. "It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World."

Or, if you prefer to abbreviate, SAIEWDNBIFSWHTUTAAWTTTSTCOTFW.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Bushism has returned. The malapropisms that adorned Bush's 2000 campaign before going into remission during much of his presidency have reemerged to garnish his reelection bid.

In that same speech to the minority journalists this month, Bush offered this definition of policy toward Native Americans: "Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. I mean, you're a -- you're a -- you've been given sovereignty and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities."

The day before, when signing a Pentagon spending bill, Bush delighted late-night comics when he said that our enemies "never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

While Democrats rushed to agree with that accidental Bush admission, they couldn't compete with the brief but forceful way he summed up his candidacy the previous day in Davenport, Iowa: "We stand for things."

As in 2000, the president seems to enjoy his linguistic miscues. Appearing last week with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bush said he and the Austrian-born California governor "share a lot in common" -- good wives, big biceps and "trouble with the English language."

The next day, he offered a curious wish for his audience in Oregon: "I hope you leave here and walk out and say, 'What did he say?' " The question was rhetorical, but it is possible a listener would at times be truly befuddled about Bush's meaning.

There was this discussion of Iran policy last week: "As you know, we don't have relationships with Iran," Bush said. "I mean, that's -- ever since the late '70s, we have no contacts with them, and we've totally sanctioned them. In other words, there's no sanctions -- you can't -- we're out of sanctions."

In that same session, Bush might have listeners worried about their civil liberties when he ran into plural trouble. "Let me put it to you bluntly," he ventured. "In a changing world, we want more people to have control over your own life."

As if rerunning the 2000 campaign, the national and international media are again examining Bush's syntax. "Tongue-Twisted Bush Is Bent on Self-Harm," announced the Independent newspaper of London. "Dubya's New Word Blunder" was an Australian newspaper's take. National Public Radio wondered if Bush's gaffes "might influence the coming election."

Jacob Weisberg, editor of the online publication Slate and author of four volumes of Bushisms, said his theory is that Bushisms subsided after Bush took office "because the opportunities for him to go off script became more limited."

Now, with Bush again campaigning, there are opportunities for verbal mishaps almost daily. At a campaign event in Florida last week, Bush could be heard joking about an attempted ax murder of Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and his wife. "He wakes up one night and an ax-wielding group of men tried to hatchet him to death, or ax him to death. I guess, you don't hatchet somebody with an ax. And you don't ax them with a hatchet. He wakes up, the glint of the blade coming at him, and he gets cut badly, escapes. The guy hit his wife, who never recovered, really."

This year's standard for Bushisms was the Aug. 6 meeting of minority journalists, where Bush offered a range of creative phrases.

Taxes? "I cut the taxes on everybody. I didn't cut them. The Congress cut them. I asked them to cut them."

Discrimination? "I knew this was going to be an issue in our country, that there would be people that say, 'There goes a Muslim-looking person.' "

Immigration reform? "I have talked about it lately. I talked about it this winter."

War? "I wish I wasn't the war president. Who in the heck wants to be a war president? I don't."

Maybe that's why he calls it the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
Discrimination? "I knew this was going to be an issue in our country, that there would be people that say, 'There goes a Muslim-looking person.' "

[/ QUOTE ] Priceless.

[cardcounter0]

"It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World."

I don't find anything wrong with this. What is the problem?

"Ideological Extremists" Bush is certainly a neocon extremist.

"Who Do Not Believe in Free Societies" I think the Patriot Acts I and II are proof of that.

"Who Happen to Use Terror as a Weapon" The whole war on terror thing, Homeland security warnings, Prison Torture, People held without trial in Cuba, etc. He seems to be doing a pretty good job of using this terror weapon.

"to Try to Shake the Conscience of the Free World." I think he has pissed off almost every one of our former supporters, hasn't he? Despite almost universal support right after 9/11 -- I mean that wasn't a very easy job, reversing all that support like that.

I think Bush did a remarkable articulate job of describing himself.

[Cyrus]

Yeah, why not? I believe in empowering people with special needs, as the PC crowd calls those folks.

I would put Bush in charge of the cafeteria. He likes a good joke, he creates havoc with the English language, he tries so hard to run a good shop (house shrink says, typical silver spoon no-good boy's late need to prove himself) --- so he'd be a cinch to run a good cafeteria in the company premises. I'd bet you he makes great coffee as well.

George's language gaffes would also make for a nice conversation topic among the staff, during the coffee break. Always good to have an upbeat and inoffensive topic to laugh about during coffee break! Completely destroys the boredom. And ol' Dubya won't mind the good-natured ribbing and the laughter and the slaps in the back.

He'd be perfect.

The people would not want him moved from that position, never.

[Chris Alger]

What would you think if you interviewed someone who's knowledge of current events was pretty important, someone applying for a job such as news editor or stock analyst. Let's say he made repeated logical and grammatical gaffes like "steadfast progress," "misunderestimate," how illiteracy "are appalling," that he said "finances" when he meant finance and "persecute" when he meant prosecute and the like. When you gently probed how he came to know all he does, he admitted that he "rarely" read newspapers and instead relied on assistants who "probably" read them to tell him what's happening in the world.

You'd spend the interview biting your cheeks until they were bloody, wondering how a middle aged man could remain as limited as a teenager, how he faked his resume, and what failing of your own staff let him slip through, hoping perhaps that he was ushered in for your amusement or maybe as a practical joke.

This is someone whom most Republicans can be gulled into hailing as a great and important leader, thanks to the miracle of television.

(All authentic Bushisms).

[Martin Aigner]

Thanks, Cyrus, that really made my day

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[Stu Pidasso]

I wouldn't hire Bush or Kerry to run a company. I'm not happy that one of these two will be the POTUS for the next 4 years. The truth is, they both suck.

Stu

[cardcounter0]

To be more accurate, he said he didn't read newspapers but the people who told him what was going on probably did. So it isn't really definitive if he even gets current events from the newspaper second-hand. What is clear is he totally relies on others to tell him what is a priority or important. (Isn't setting priorities another one of those top executive skills that W seems to totally lack?)

[adios]

I doubt it. If we can agree on what being an excellent CEO entails I'm almost certain I could argue that it has nothing to do with being excellent as a President. I'll throw out something. One very important characteristic of a corporate CEO excellance IMO is maximizing shareholder value. I doubt that this has much to do with governing effectively as head of the executive branch. Furthermore I don't think that the electorate wants the government run like an effecient corporation where maximizing the long run bottom line becomes the main focus. And on top of that why would Kerry be adept at being CEO of a corporation? Your post is silly. Argue that George Bush is lousy at running the executive branch of government and Kerry provides a better alternative because that is relevant. Their respective skills at running a company are unimportant.

[Gamblor]

What would you think if you interviewed someone who's knowledge of current events was pretty important, someone applying for a job such as news editor or stock analyst. Let's say he made repeated logical and grammatical gaffes like "steadfast progress," "misunderestimate," how illiteracy "are appalling," that he said "finances" when he meant finance and "persecute" when he meant prosecute and the like.

Or "who's" when he meant "whose".

I'll prepare your in-ah-gah-ray-shun speech.