Saturday, May 2, 2009

Obama v. Bush: Comparing Communication

National Public Radio host Roy Blunt, Jr. gave an entertaining and interesting interview to MotherJones recently about how he does NOT miss the embarrassment of Bushisms:

An excerpt:

MJ: Do you miss the linguistic oddities of Bush's speech?

RB: No! I don't. I didn't like them when I first heard them and I don't want to hear any more of them. I like linguistic eccentricity that has a point to it and that explores the possibilities of speech, but Bushisms were ways of not saying anything, or ways of saying something that he didn't really mean to say, and it was embarrassing to listen to. Obama is certainly a lot more interesting to listen to. I mean, Obama's the most thoughtful-sounding president I can remember. He seems to be saying what he wants to say, and that is a great relief. Even though he's gotten a lot more solemn since he's gotten elected, and I can't blame him. He always sounds like he's thinking about what he's saying while he's saying it, and that's a rare thing in politicians. We had him on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me one time, back before he had declared for the presidency when he was a little more willing to be loose, and he mentioned that his first day in the Senate he found that every senator had a little desk, and that all the senators over the centuries had carved their names into their desks. And I said, "Are you supposed to do that?" And he said, "Well, as the only African American member of the Senate I thought I might spraypaint my name." Tag it, as it were. So, I think he's got a great sense of humor, but mainly he has a great thinking presence, which is uncommon. It's hard to imagine being able to do, think over answers and deliver them on television. If I were president I would constantly be spluttering.

Read More Here.


No comments:

Post a Comment