John Gaquin wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c6eqc6

Bush was raised in a home where English was spoken properly, attended a
tony prep school, got into Yale as a legacy, was turned down by a
third-rate Texas law school, and then had his way paid into Harvard
business school. Yet when he speaks, he sounds like an idiot.


GW is a terrible public speaker, 'tis true. But, to borrow a line from "The
American President" (a lightweight but enjoyable bit of fluff from 1995),
"Louis, we have had Presidents who were beloved who couldn't find a coherent
sentence with two hands and a flashlight." [possible slight paraphrasing]

The difference is that Kerry started in New England,

Bush started in New England, too. He was born in the same hospital I
was, in New Haven, Connecticut. His father was attending Yale at the time,


GW started
in Texas, and didn't want to lose it.

Nope.


No amount of Prep School time in the
world can remove a dose of Texas that doesn't want to be removed. That's
not good or bad, that's just the way it is.

With or without the Texas, GW would still be a poor public speaker. With or
without the affected Brahmin, Kerry would still be an impressive one.

I don't think Kerry is much of a speaker. He's better than Bush, but,
then, it's hard to think of any politician who isn't. I think Kerry uses
sentences that are far too long and far too lacking in color. I far
preferred Dan'l Patrick Moynihan or Bill Clinton as speakers . Tony
Blair is a great speaker, as are most Brit prime ministers.


It's
an innate skill that is not necessarily relevant. The esteemed Mr. Clinton
has shown us well that a glib and facile tongue do



It's relevant. The "leader" of the free world should not sound the
village idiot, as Bush does.