Have Bush's speech patterns shifted over time? If so, why?

[Measure_for_Measure]

James Fallows in a recent Atlantic Monthly article, observes that the President’s verbal missteps and distinctive speech patterns are a relatively recent development. For example, during the 1994 gubernatorial debate with Ann Richards, W reportedly spoke with speed, ease and eloquence.

If this is the case, then my longstanding assumption that W has a very mild dyslexia or learning disability is false: those conditions apparently don’t worsen over time. So what is W’s problem?

Linguist George Lakoff maintains that W intentionally adopted his clipped speech patterns and awkward mannerisms. Short sentences make one sound decisive, like Clint Eastwood.

Also, seeming attempts to grasp at words disarm the listener. I certainly agree that W’s strategy --hold few press conferences and stay glued to your talking points during those rare occasions-- has been pretty effective in keeping the media in his thrall. Call this the Hollywood Cowboy hypothesis.

Joseph M Price, MD of Carsonville, Michigan offers another point of view. In a letter to the Atlantic’s editor, he notes that

…Bush’s problem cannot be “a learning disability, a reading problem, [or] dyslexia,” because patients with those problems have always had them. Slowly developing cognitive defects, as demonstrated so clearly by the President, can represent only one diagnosis, and that is “presenile dementia”… Bush should immediately be given the advantage of a considered professional diagnosis, and started on drugs that offer the possibility of retarding the slow but inexorable course of the disease.

Brackets and quotation marks in original letter. Link added.

There are a number of concerns that need to be cleared up here. First, some medical dopers might comment on the accuracy of Dr. Price’s characterization. (Obviously, he has not made a diagnosis: note the last sentence.)

Second, with all due respect to Mr. Fallows, the extent to which GW Bush’s speech patterns have actually deteriorated is not clear to this observer. I have searched in vain on the web for an audio or video of W speaking extemporaneously before 1999. What I’d really like to hear is an extended clip from the Ann Richards / George W Bush gubernatorial debate of 1994. But even a Texas press conference transcript would help. Maybe others will have better luck with CSPAN, the State of Texas or the Internet Archive. I call upon my fellow Dopers for help.

There are other subtleties to be gleaned from the Atlantic article. And I should note that Fallows believes that Bush is an exceptionally effective debater, albeit one with an unusual style. But I think I will stop here.

[dropzone]

IANAMD but I thought it might be from a small stroke, the recover of which was covered up by one of his vacations, but I might’ve stolen that from my wife who used it to explain some of Reagan’s movements and gestures. “See when he does that with his hands? Only stroke patients do that.”

[Zoe]

Measure for Measure: (Obviously, he has not made a diagnosis: note the last sentence.)

I think that he did:

Slowly developing cognitive defects, as demonstrated so clearly by the President, can represent only one diagnosis, and that is “presenile dementia”… (bolding added)

He may be failing to take into account the effects that being under stress and having been shielded from public criticism may have on him. Also, it is possible that he is under the influence of medication or other substances. Some mental illnesses can make it difficult to concentrate and it shows up in speech.

His delivery four years ago was smoother, but even then, he said things that were total nonsense.

I am also interested in hearing earlier debates. Good OP.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Zoe:
I think Dr. Price was using the word “diagnosis” to contrast longstanding cognitive defects with slowly developing ones. The latter (reportedly) can only be presenile dementia.

There are qualifications. Zoe’s point about the use of medication with side effects and stress seem sound to me.

Fallow’s favored hypothesis was that W was a big fish in a small pond in Texas: he could easily master his 4 campaign positions in the Lone Star state. At national level though, he has more on his plate than he is comfortable with:

From the Fallows article
There are some skills Bush can use with little or no effort; according to friends, he can quickly size people up and detect their vanities and weak points. Other skills appear to require too much effort for him to bother with. He has rarely been interested in the details of any policy matter, believing that he “has people” who can master the subject for him. …

[With regards to Lakoff’s view, labeled The Hollywood Cowboy Hypothesis, above]. But to me the more plausible overall explanation is the sheer change in scale from being governor of Texas to being President of the United States… In Washington he still has the people skills, but he has given no sign of mastering issues. Thus his stalling, defensive pose when put on the spot.

(Those 2 quotes come from different parts of the article.)

All the same, if anybody has access to the Texas State Library and Archives Commission, or perhaps another source, I’d be interested in evaluating the extent of the current President’s verbal deterioration.

Do any Dopers from Texas have memories of Governor Bush’s press conferences?

[Measure_for_Measure]

It occurs to me that I should quote the part of the letter to the editor that outlines Bush’s current impairment. I can only assume that Dr. Price was taking this assessment by Fallows as given.

From a letter to the Atlantic by Dr. Joseph Price, MD

I, too, felt that something was wrong with President Bush, most probably dyslexia. But I was unaware of what Fallows pointed out so clearly: that Bush’ problems have been developing slowly, and that just a decade ago he was an articulate debater, “artful indeed in steering questions and challenges to his desired subjects,” who “did not pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent mangled new ones”. Consider, in contrast, the present: “the informal Q&A he has tried to avoid,” "Bush’s recent faltering performances, " “his unfortunate puzzled-chimp expression when trying to answer questions,” “his stalling, defensive pose when put on the spot,” “speaking more slowly and less gracefully”.

Not being a clinician, Fallows cannot be faulted for not putting two and two together…

I, for one, would like to see a baseline firsthand to compare with Bush’s current posture.

[Waenara]

I’ve also heard mention of the possibility of Dry Drunk Syndrome possibly causing deterioration of Dubya’s cognitive abilities.

Note: I don’t really know much about it, I just saw a few mentions of it in various threads around here. The article linked above, and quoted from below, was just the first hit I got on Google for “dry drunk” +bush

Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

“Dry drunk” traits consist of:
Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
Grandiose behavior
A rigid, judgmental outlook
Impatience
Childish behavior
Irresponsible behavior
Irrational rationalization
Projection
Overreaction

To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call “the dry drunk.” His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use.

[commasense]

The other day, C-SPAN radio replayed one of Bush’s 2000 debates with Al Gore, and I was struck by how much more in command of facts and figures Bush was then than he was in last week’s debate. His manner was much more confident and fluent than it is today. I really began to think there might be something to this theory that something is wrong with the president.

[Magiver]

The doctor’s quote was pure BS. President Bush is a terrible speaker, always has been and always will be. The more he practices before a speach the better he is but he is usually a dear-in-headlights when shoved in front of a camera.

I’ve met many people that write well but fall apart in speaking situations. There are techniques that can be employed for a running speach but it’s tough to talk on the fly if that’s not a personal talent.

[Magiver]

@commasense

The other day, C-SPAN radio replayed one of Bush’s 2000 debates with Al Gore, and I was struck by how much more in command of facts and figures Bush was then than he was in last week’s debate. His manner was much more confident and fluent than it is today. I really began to think there might be something to this theory that something is wrong with the president.

I thought just the opposite. I wanted to kick Bush’s debate coach in the ass after the first debate with Gore. I thought he did better this year, only because it looked like he spent more time prepping for it. Kerry has enjoyed debating people as far back as his high school days. He looks much better in a debate than Gore did. One thing that struck me was that little smile he got when he heard something he wanted to talk about and jotted it down quickly. Go back and watch the video. Kerry LOVES debating.

[Marley23]

@Magiver

Kerry has enjoyed debating people as far back as his high school days. He looks much better in a debate than Gore did. One thing that struck me was that little smile he got when he heard something he wanted to talk about and jotted it down quickly. Go back and watch the video. Kerry LOVES debating.

Clearly. Sometimes he’d raise his eyebrows a bit and start writing, like he was thinking “You said that, eh? I’m gonna enjoy shooting that down…”

I don’t remember the 2000 debates very well. I’ve gotten the impression, though, that Bush didn’t prepare for Friday’s debate nearly as much as Kerry did. Newsweek quoted Bush’s communications director saying “He knows his positions… You don’t have to memorize something you believe in.” Who knows how the election turns out, but that may have been a monumental blunder.

Back to the topic: Bush had a rap for being a bad speaker in 2000. A comparison would be interesting, who knows if he’s gotten worse… but “subliminable” and “misunderestimated” aren’t that recent. How he sounded before he was in the national spotlight I have no idea.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

For what it’s worth, I saw some outtakes of Bush’s performance against Ann Richards in the Texas gubenatorial debates and was genuinely surprised by Bush’s demeanor. He stood ramrod straight, his responses were fast, clear, and to the point, and he exuded a charisma that I’ve never seen him display as President.

I found his position on the issues to be fairly draconic, unsurprisingly, but I could at least understand his appeal to hard-line conservatives. If Bush had ever displayed these qualities as President I certainly wouldn’t accuse him of stupidity, at least.

I’ve searched the C-Span database in vain, but I can’t locate the program. It was one of the “most watched” videos after the last presidential debate, and I think it was an episode of either “American Perspectives” or “The Road to the White House.” It’s definitely worth seeing if you can find it, as the difference between Bush then, a mere 10 years ago, and Bush now, 10 years later, is remarkable.

[Measure_for_Measure]

I checked CSPAN too: I could only get a 15 seconds of commentary from Fallows. His impressions, and those of linguist Lakoff, appear similar to Mr. Svinlesha’s. See the Atlantic article linked in the OP. Something happened between 1994 and today: it is not clear whether it was intentional or unintentional.

I have found it very difficult to locate videos of GWB before he ascended to the Oval Office. In the end, I could only find one: the evidence here is so weak that many shouldn’t bother to click the link.

It’s a wedding video from 1992, hardly the sort of context where W would want to present himself seriously. The rendition is certainly pre-Hollywood Cowboy: W is doing his frat-boy class cutup schtick. I had read about this character (his crack at the Queen of England comes to mind), but I had never seen it filmed.

W is quick, funny and improvises competently. He is also somewhat juvenile, or more accurately, collegiate.

W was 46 at the time: he was in his post-sober era. Those wanting to contrast that performance with more contemporary ones will have to control for the fact that politicians simply can’t hack around on film like fixer/businessmen can.

Sorry I couldn’t do better, but this is all I have:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush.html

[Measure_for_Measure]

Ack! Just to make it clear, I understand that Bush stopped drinking in 1985. He holds a glass during the video, presumably with a nonalcoholic refreshment.

[Magiver]

@Marley23

Clearly. Sometimes he’d raise his eyebrows a bit and start writing, like he was thinking “You said that, eh? I’m gonna enjoy shooting that down…”

I don’t remember the 2000 debates very well. I’ve gotten the impression, though, that Bush didn’t prepare for Friday’s debate nearly as much as Kerry did. Newsweek quoted Bush’s communications director saying “He knows his positions… You don’t have to memorize something you believe in.” Who knows how the election turns out, but that may have been a monumental blunder.

Back to the topic: Bush had a rap for being a bad speaker in 2000. A comparison would be interesting, who knows if he’s gotten worse… but “subliminable” and “misunderestimated” aren’t that recent. How he sounded before he was in the national spotlight I have no idea.

Not only did Kerry raise his eye brows, he smiled, I caught it immediately. He did it a couple of times. He is absolutely in his element when debating. An excellent trait for a lawyer.

Bush was as well-prepped as he was going to get, despite the required hurricane victim stopover. He is simply a bad speaker. Some days he does better but it is clearly not his strong suit.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Look, I recognize that there are ample opportunities for cheap shots here, but given that W has postponed his annual August physical until after the election, unlike Clinton who had his physical in May 1996, I hope that Bush undergoes appropriate neurological testing at a convenient time.

Better safe than sorry, I say. Nonetheless, I opine that the Hollywood Cowboy hypothesis is at least partly correct. GWBush apparently received a great deal of coaching from former TV reporter Karen Hughes:

The first time I noticed an indication of a radio frequency bouncing between the brains of Bush and Hughes was during Gov. Bush’s initial State of the State speech in Texas. Still a simple press hack, Hughes did not take to the riser in the Texas House of Representatives, instead standing off to the side, behind the shiny brass railing rimming the chamber’s floor.

“Look at Karen,” I said, nudging a colleague.

“Oh, my God. You’ve got to be kidding me.”

As Gov. Bush read the text of his speech from a teleprompter, his communications director was silently mouthing the words along with him. The synchronized delivery suggested a parent sitting in the audience of an elementary school pageant while mouthing forgotten lines as her child stood dumbstruck onstage.

“Do you suppose she has any idea how odd that looks?” my friend asked.

“If she does, I don’t think she cares. She seems to just want her guy to do well.”

[Aeschines]

The speech pattern known as “lie” seems to be quite adequately and consistently preserved in him.

[Measure_for_Measure]

It’s 20 minutes into the 2nd Presidential debate. Bush is speaking at a rapid-fire pace, faster than I’ve ever heard him speak.

Has the Hollywood Cowboy been put on the shelf during this debate? What do others think?

[Marley23]

He was smoother tonight and didn’t seem as lost. There were some bad moments, and some incoherence - sometimes I think he knows the idea and the important words in the sentence he’s trying to say, but has trouble with the other words that connect them. Like he might stress “right” and “security,” but have trouble forming the words around them.

[Measure_for_Measure]

I found a partisan video that gives an extended sample from the Ann Richards debate.

W sounds very, very different.

The video is available here and I hope here.

Usenet fans can try checking out alt.politics.bush .

Four hypotheses are listed in a post by Brad DeLong. He favors the Worried Man Theory: “George W. Bush knows he has messed up badly, and is scared, and it shows.”

Variants of more organic theories are also discussed.

More data, of course, would be welcome.