Yes, he actually said “childern”… several times. I attribute it to his accent, but it grated hard.
As to whether or not I agreed with the substance of the speech, I agreed with one thin he said – that he hasn’t adequately justified his thirst for Iraqi blood to the American people. Despite the fact that he changed his tune yet again last night (or perhaps because of it), he still hasn’t.
Bush isn’t likely to stop a nuclear attack, but he sure as Hell could cause one.
It just occured to me that my President delivers speeches just about as eloquently as our other Texan pal Wildest Bill used to write. Hmm… Come to think of it…
International and foreign terrorism:
Is the 72 Virgin Thing for Suicide Bombers When They Die in the Koran?
Domestic terrorism:
Is There a Anecdote for Anthrax?
Homeland security:
What are those Cameras on Top of Traffic Lights For?
Winning the drug war:
What’s the Main Difference Between Cocoa Leaves And Cocaine?
Environmental policy:
Would Are Eco Sytem be Ok If We Extincted Mosquitos?
I’m beginning to think that the day Wildest Bill was banned from the SDMB, the President lost his most trusted advisors.
I thought the speech was spectaclear.
I just sat here saying “children” for about two minutes, and came to the conclusion that I say “child-ern” too. I don’t think I would be able to switch to saying “child-ren” and make it sound natural. I’ve been saying it the other way (due to my Texas accent) for too long.
I pronounce “nuclear” right, but if I had been pronouncing it wrong all these years (due to my accent or whatever) I doubt I would be able to change now. Cut the guy some slack. Not everybody talks the same.
And George W. Bush is very much Texan. He may have been born in Connecticut and gone to college in Connecticut, but he grew up here and spent most of his life here. His accent is quite genuine.
Because the alternative is that everyone criticizing the President’s speech patterns is at the same mental level as a kid in the first grade. I decided to give y’all the benefit of the doubt.
thank you both, I was thinking I was the only one here that remembered this.
and no he AIN’T
Uh, no. No more so then people who are discussing what is their favorite colored car not bothering to go off on a tangent about which car has the most horsepower or what have you.
Also, if we were approaching this as if we were at the same mental level as a 1st grader we’d all be running around repeating the spiffy new word, or just giggling to ourselves.
BTW, nice false dilemma there, it is X or Y, there is no Z.
I’m sure there’s a Z. It just doesn’t involve intelligent critique of Bush’s politics. All I’m seeing in this thread is, “I don’t like him, so I’ll find the drop-dead dumbest reasons to rant about him!” I find it similar to the ol’ grammar police who ruthlessly pounce on someone who makes a typo or syntax error whilst posting on a message board.
I imagine there’re some rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Bushers that are all geared up and ready to explode like overripe pimples if ol’ Dubya happens to say “foilage” or “libary”.
Anyone who thinks that “awesome” rhymes with “blossom” ought not to tell other people how to talk.
If we’re going to have a war no matter what, I’d personally love to see Bush start it by going on TV and announcing “Saddam Hussein… GOTCHA YA!”
Why would there be a critique of his policies in this thread? Does every thread that involves our president have to be about his policies? We’re not allowed to discuss the person at all?
After all, if you have that much of a problem with the topic presented in the OP, why bother posting about it?
No, not quite, Spoofe. I don’t think Feckless Leader is a rather ignorant mediocrity because he mangles syntax and pronunciation. I think he mangles syntax and pronunciation because he is a rather ignorant mediocrity.
Regrettably, he believes in magic. He believes that on the morning of Sept. 12, 2001, he was reborn as a Leader of Men. He believes that he won the election, fair and square. He believes that Saddam and Osama are interchangeable.
More cognitive dissonance than a busted chain-saw.
quoth Sublight:
This is turning into the scariest conversation I’ve ever had.
Bush’s speech, as reported in the Chicago Sun-Times on 10/8/02:
Who else has some good GWB malapropisms? 
Sofa King, I don’t actually want a war, mind you, but if we had one, that’s the line I’d like to see plastered on the front page of the newspapers.
To be honest, his misstatements don’t bother me that much. I’ve heard too many of our local politicians say things that weren’t clumsy, but downright stupid and/or evil (and really believe in what they were saying), to get upset over ‘subliminable’.
Since ever, I’ve known that nuclear is standard and nucular is nonstandard. And having lived my entire life among Northerners, nuclear is the pronunciation I accept as correct, and admittedly, nucular sounds like nails on a chalkboard to me. Regardless, I tolerate this departure from the norm, even though I don’t like it. It’s not an accent, in this case (like childern is,) but that is how some people talk. I can live with this. Furthermore, while I do think Bush is an idiot, I don’t think such pronunciations indicate that the speaker is an idiot.
That said, I think this really does matter. The reason that it matters is that it matters to so many people, whether consciously or unconsciously. The way language is pronounced has always prejudiced people against others, which is in most cases unfair. This is not unique to English speakers, either; it’s a human phenomenon. The thing is, the nucular pronunciation does matter. It matters because others think it does. I don’t mean to say that all you who say nucular should start drilling yourselves to learn the standard pronunciation. What I’m saying is that the fact that Bush pronounces such a serious word this way gives the impression to many that he’s not a serious position, which will hurt him through the unconscious writing off that many people will do. Professional broadcasters are trained to pronounce words certain ways, so that they sound competent. Whether they actually are is another story—what’s at issue here is perception.
I think the Bush team is encouraging their man to pronounce the word this way on purpose, probably to make him seem more folksy and likeable. I think this is a miscalculation on their part. The election of 2000 might have called for a less serious person, but 2004 is clearly going to be different. Come Election Day 2004, those who loathe him will still loathe him, and those who love him will still love him, but those straddling will have to decide whether he’s really up for the job. While such superficial details as one’s public speaking habits don’t indicate anyone’s mental acuity, many people will care. Will it matter enough to turn the tide of the next election? Who knows? But it sure can’t help.
In the interest of full disclosure: I can’t stand Bush, and I can’t imagine what it would take to convince me that I should pull the lever for him during the next election. But I’m also caught between two pet peeves: I can’t stand the pronunciation nucular, and I also can’t stand when people pass judgement on others because of accent or pronunciation habits! While I do think this will hurt him in the eyes of the voters, however subliminally, I don’t approve of making this hay, and I refuse to do so, even though he’s a really easy mark. Poking fun at his malapropisms is another thing altogether: that’s just poor (or absent) training in public speaking and a distinct lack of the decorum Americans expect from their president. But the amount of decorum we should expect from the president is a whole other debate…
Of course it doesn’t, because it contains no critique of Bush’s politics, let alone intelligent or moronic discussion of said politics, as that isn’t the topic. Imagine that, people discussing the topic presented.
Then you need glasses, what has been happening in this thread are people asking if they in fact heard correctly, and if it grated on other’s ears as much as it grated as theirs, others took the time to ponder why the mistakes where present, he does have a staff to help him with such things.
I hope you let me know when you see them, as I’ve yet to see any. BTW, why is one automatically anti-Bush if they notice his mistakes and comment on them? A public speaker should be excepted to have such things commented on them wither he is speaking at a party, a State of the Union Address, or giving an oral report in class.
It’s interesting the polarization that happens in some peoples mind where it concerns politics and public figures, if you don’t find them perfect and you point out faults you must hate him. If you don’t care about those aspects or at least don’t comment on it you must believe him perfect.
As I pointed out way back on that first page, the President didn’t just pronounce “nuclear” in a way which is inconsistent with its spelling and most popular use. In that same speech, he also ranted against Iraq for harboring the notorious terrorist “Eye-boo Nah-dahl.”
That’s Abu Nidal to you and me.
There may very well be a matter of preference over how to pronounce the guy’s name, but what the President said ain’t one of the possible correct ones. I’m pretty sure about that.
Which begs the questions:
Why the fuck should I assume this guy knows anything about the subject when he can’t even pronounce the name of the terrorist Iraq was harboring? Why should I take his word on anything related to Iraq or terrorism, especially when we’re talking about something as grave as a democratic government contemplating a preemptive war?
Imagine if a used car salesman came up to you on the lot and said, “take my word for it, at two hundred thousand bucks this Lam-bo-rig-nee Cown-tak is a steal!”
Would you be convinced? Then why the hell should I believe this guy?
Anybody else suspect he’s not stupid but dyslexic? That would help explain why he stumbles over the long words on the TelePrompTer when he’s trying to speak in complete sentences, too.
That’s all the doubt I’m willing to give him the benefit of, btw.
Search for Nuclear.
Listen to the pronunciations.
May we never have this topic again.