Worst historical speech performance?

Quote:

Picture says a thousand words, huh?

Ain't that so!

Every time I look at that picture, I physically shake my head...

and reflect on the fact that we actually elected that guy twice
to the presidency (once with the help of SCOTUS).

But you gotta give him this:
He was a master of lousy speeches!

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4990243)
Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
Picture says a thousand words, huh?


Ain't that so!
YES, it ain 't, Frank.
W was correct in that as of that point,
Saddam had been ousted from control of Iraq.
That was THE REASON that we went there, so the mission, WAS INDEED accomplished, in that Saddam was dislodged.
THAT's what we went there to DO and that 's what we SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISHED, by that time.
Saddam did not sneak back into power.

We did NOT go there for "nation-building".
W, with help from the Democrats, just snuck that in; thay ADOPTED A NEW MISSION of nation-building.
We got bogged down in "nation-building."
We did NOT go there to do THAT; bait and switch.


Arguably, we shud have brought back the troops
after getting rid of Saddam, but there was some danger of his re-establishing himself.



Frank Apisa wrote:
Every time I look at that picture, I physically shake my head...
Admittedly, I can see an argument
that W shud have waited until after we had killed Saddam,
before he said that, and made it a funeral oration,
but reasonable minds can differ about that.
Note that I disapproved when Reagan chose Bush.
I don 't like the Bushes; not real conservatives, not followers
of Washington, Madison or Goldwater, but thay were just
not as bad as their competition at election time.



Frank Apisa wrote:
and reflect on the fact that we actually elected that guy twice
to the presidency (once with the help of SCOTUS).
W got no significant help from them.
W got more votes than Gore in Florida; that 's all there is to it.
Many newspapers sent representatives there to re-count the votes AGAIN,
after Gore was finished with them.
Thay found the same result.
It 'd have been a BIG story for their headlines if Gore had won.
The newspapers left no room for reasonable skepticism.


Frank Apisa wrote:
But you gotta give him this:
He was a master of lousy speeches!
Yeah, I remember a fellow who hung around in Italy a lot; Benito Mussolini.
HIS speeches were very well received!


David

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 4990243)
Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
Picture says a thousand words, huh?


Ain't that so!
YES, it ain 't, Frank.
W was correct in that as of that point,
Saddam had been ousted from control of Iraq.
That was THE REASON that we went there, so the mission, WAS INDEED accomplished, in that Saddam was dislodged.
THAT's what we went there to DO and that 's what we SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISHED, by that time.
Saddam did not sneak back into power.

We did NOT go there for "nation-building".
W, with help from the Democrats, just snuck that in; thay ADOPTED A NEW MISSION of nation-building.
We got bogged down in "nation-building."
We did NOT go there to do THAT; bait and switch.


Arguably, we shud have brought back the troops
after getting rid of Saddam, but there was some danger of his re-establishing himself.



Frank Apisa wrote:
Every time I look at that picture, I physically shake my head...
Admittedly, I can see an argument
that W shud have waited until after we had killed Saddam,
before he said that, and made it a funeral oration,
but reasonable minds can differ about that.
Note that I disapproved when Reagan chose Bush.
I don 't like the Bushes; not real conservatives, not followers
of Washington, Madison or Goldwater, but thay were just
not as bad as their competition at election time.



Frank Apisa wrote:
and reflect on the fact that we actually elected that guy twice
to the presidency (once with the help of SCOTUS).
W got no significant help from them.
W got more votes than Gore in Florida; that 's all there is to it.
Many newspapers sent representatives there to re-count the votes AGAIN,
after Gore was finished with them.
Thay found the same result.
It 'd have been a BIG story for their headlines if Gore had won.
The newspapers left no room for reasonable skepticism.


Frank Apisa wrote:
But you gotta give him this:
He was a master of lousy speeches!
Yeah, I remember a fellow who hung around in Italy a lot; Benito Mussolini.
HIS speeches were very well received!


David

David, there is a scene in the film The King's Speech where the young Princess Elizabeth and Margaret Rose and the King are watching a film news report of a speech by Adolph Hitler. One of the princesses asks her father, "What is that man saying?"

The King responds, "I do not really know. But he is saying it rather well!"

I doubt anyone ever said that about George W. Bush...the part about "saying it rather well." I listened to many of W's speeches, and if asked, "What is he saying?"...I might well have responded, "I don't really know!"

And although this is fairly recent history, but I nominate David's speech here for the honor asked for in the title of this thread.

Maybe if he'd been a better painter, things might have worked out differently.

Strom Thurmond's speech on segregation in 1948. All the while screwing the black maid.

IRFRANK wrote:

Strom Thurmond's speech on segregation in 1948. All the while screwing the black maid.

I'm pretty sure those events were sequential, not simultaneous.

Obvious choice, the definition of "is":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

"I never porked that teenage intern..."

Strom Thurmond's speech on segregation in 1948. All the while screwing the black maid.

Strom Thurmond's speech on segregation in 1948.
All the while screwing the black maid.