I read in the Wordpress support forums that you had implemented htmlarea for an editor and was expecting to find it here.

We’re trying to build an activist community at http://bush2004.com/wordpress and need to install textarea as an add on for wordpress.

Can you help us if you have done this successfully?

Hi Paul,
Wow, that’s a nice site you guys have put together!

You can find the wysiwyg Wordpress hack with complete install instructions here:
http://mudbomb.com/archives/2004/05/29/wysiwyg-hack-for-wordpress/

just because bush isn’t well spoken, does not mean he isn’t a good leader.

Being a great speaker is an inseparable part of being a great leader. It doesn’t matter how good someone’s ideas are, if they can’t communicate those ideas and persuade others, then those thoughts and convictions are useless.

Great leaders/Great speakers
Lincoln
Churchhill
JFK
Martin Luther King Jr.
FDR

Can you name 1 good leader who was incoherent?

I know this was an old post, but you forgot to add an EXTREMELY effective leader: Hitler. He was effective because he was an AWESOME speaker (his ideas were bad, but he got the people on his side just the same).

When Alexander of Macedon conquered half of the known world, the majority of his conquered subjects didn’t even speak his language.

And yet, they plied themselves into his armies, and willingly followed him to the ends of the earth.

Great leaders are not decided upon their grammar, what language they speak, or how well they communicate. It is what they accompish, and how they do it that will really matter a thousand years from now.

The fact that Bush has a slight speech impediment will be a mere side note a few hundred years from now, while the true accomplishments of the Bush Presidency will have a multitude of chapters in the history books for centuries to come.

It is interesting that you should compare Bush to Alexander the Great, a man who was regarded as a tyrant by those he ruled, and crushed all that stood against him with military force…

Alexander was a brilliant military strategist and he certainly had a large army of followers, but let’s not forget that this army was well paid in gold. Alexander’s soldiers/followers became very wealthy men.

And even though Alexander did not speak the language of his conquered lands, he did develop a means of non-verbal communication with them. When conquering a new empire, he would often adopt many of the local customs and styles of dress. He would even marry women from the region.

Well, back in the days of Alexander, who wasn’t a tyrant? If you rose against a king, you and your followers were going to meet the sword plain and simple.

Bush is far from being a tyrant, and I didn’t quite make the reference to compare how strong handed the two leaders are/were. I was merely pointing out that despite the shortcomings in communication, and all his other faults that anyone can nitpick over, that Alexander has been regarded for thousands of years for what he accomplished. The same will hold for the Bush legacy. And I am not saying that he will be put on a pedastal next to Alexander, just that Bush will be judged in the end for what he has done, and not how he has spoken.

People in the media today, squabble over Bush’s shortcomings in the grammar department, but it doesn’t really matter, and in the end no one is going to care. Like you said, Alexander overcame the shortcomings of the language gap and still had a full army. Bush must be a good communicator on some level, if not grammar, because he has basically been fighting a war going on 4 years now, and he got re-elected for it. Even with a stumbling economy.

Obviously grammar is the least of concerns when it comes to leadership. The only reason it gets such attention these days is because we live in this information age where everyone has instant access to videos and quotes from anyone, anywhere. I bet there have been dozens of great leaders in the past, who didn’t speak perfectly, yet their message still got across, and they were remembered for it.

Bush is not a great communicator on any level. Bush is the beneficiary of a hardcore Republican contingent that would vote for a monkey if it were running on the GOP ticket.

You say that Bush got re-elected DESPITE fighting a 4-year long war, whereas I would say that he got elected BECAUSE he was fighting this war. In the entire history of the United States, a sitting President has NEVER lost an election during war time. For reasons that I can’t fully comprehend, the American public seems to believe that a President should be allowed to "finish what he started"… whether it be right or wrong.

True, most leaders are judged based primarily on their accomplishments. However, the crux of this discussion is whether or not a great leader must also be a great speaker. I still maintain that there has NEVER been a great leader who wasn’t also a great speaker(although maybe I should change this to "great communicator" given my Alexander example above).

I think you are defining speaking ability into too small of a box. Communicator would probably be the better term used. Bush got 50+ million people to agree with him and follow him, I would say that he can comminicate and lead pretty well. You can’t simply look at the grammar of a speaker and downplay them as an utter buffoon. I don’t know if you have ever been to the south, but sometimes it isn’t a matter of grammar, it is simply a whole new language altogether.

There is more to speaking than simply putting together a string of words and reciting them to a camera or crowd. Many people if not most, seek a viable message in all those words. Either they agree with it, or they don’t. Grammar isn’t going to convince them otherwise, unless of course those people find flaws in the presentation and disregard the message altogether(in which case I would say the bigger flaw would be in the person who disregards the message, and not the one who delivered it). Bush has a basic understanding with the average person. He puts forth a commonsense view of the world which enough people agree with to elect him president. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Bush’s ideas, he has been elected twice to presidential office so he must be a good speaker(communicator) at the very least.

If Bush is not a good “communicator”, then the Democrats have some serious problems with their message. I don’t buy the “Republicans would vote for a Monkey” bit. That view is far too simplistic. There is obviously at least 100 million people in this country who disagree on how to run the place. If 50 million of those people made their decision because Bush has grammar problems, they really need to rethink(or at least think in the first place) their political views.

I have a friend who is a big audio/visual buff, and we go to the movies quite often. After every movie he will lament about how horrible the back left speaker was, and how the video quality kept fluctuating, etc. Sometimes he would even get up and leave mid-movie. He tells me about it, and I simply respond that I was watching the movie, and not the quality of the presentation. /shrug

It isn’t important as to how the message gets across, what matters is the message itself. And that is the way it should be. If someone as charismatic as Hitler got up on the podium tomorrow, and spoke like a true angel, telling us everything we wanted to hear, just how we wanted to hear it, with a flawless presentation… would you vote for him? Would you be dazzled by his Charisma, or would you take a good look at what he was laying down on the table and make your decision that way?

I am of the mind, that you will have a much better leader if he is elected as a result of his policies and well founded ideas, rather than how well he can sway opinion by his eloquently delivered rhedorick and talking points.

Also, Bush’s case isn’t helped when every word he speaks is dissected by a crowd of Journalists who want to make their name by having fun with his words. Most of the media these days will do anything in their power to defame and bring down Bush in an effort to defeat him politically and morally. The way the media plays it, they would have you think Bush never speaks a sentence without destroying it.

You can’t get 5 minutes worth of unaltered video from a speech these days without getting 3 hours of commentary and opinion on our “news” channels. I guarantee that if Bush were president a hundred years ago, his grammar would not even be an issue, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Bush got 50+ million people to agree with him and follow him, I would say that he can comminicate and lead pretty well.

Based on what? The mere fact that he received a majority of votes? There have been MANY men elected US President who would not be considered great leaders. Jimmy Carter won an election. Does that make him a great leader?

Nearly 50% of the voting public voted against Bush. This is a horrible electoral performance for a man whose victory was almost assured(as a sitting war-time President).

There is more to speaking than simply putting together a string of words and reciting them to a camera or crowd. Many people if not most, seek a viable message in all those words. Either they agree with it, or they don’t. Grammar isn’t going to convince them otherwise

I never said that a leader should be judged based solely on his speaking ability. The ability to make a speech(or the lack thereof in Bush’s case) is indicative of a much greater problem: A lack of either education or intellect. Neither of these qualities should be deficient in the "leader of the free world". Let’s analyze a couple of Bush’s quotes:

"The illiteracy level of our children are appalling."

Do you believe this to be a "speech impediment", as you mentioned above? I would say it is a lack of understanding of basic subject-verb agreement. Imagine, a President who can’t comprehend concepts taught in 3rd grade English class.

"They misunderestimated me."

A President who doesn’t understand a 5th grade vocabulary word and it’s proper prefix?

If Bush is not a good “communicator”, then the Democrats have some serious problems with their message.

You’ll receive no disagreement from me. John Kerry was a horrible choice. He had no definitive stance on any issue, an annoying, unlikeable wife(can you imagine her as first lady?), and, let’s be honest, a face that would scare small children. Bush certainly benefited from being the "lesser of two evils" to many voters.

BTW: I’ve often-mentioned this on the site, but it bears repeating- I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I think that when someone wraps up their entire political philosophy under one party’s "official position", it shows a very narrow-minded view of the issues. Personally, I think that Reagan was a great Republican President.

If someone as charismatic as Hitler got up on the podium tomorrow, and spoke like a true angel, telling us everything we wanted to hear, just how we wanted to hear it, with a flawless presentation… would you vote for him? Would you be dazzled by his Charisma, or would you take a good look at what he was laying down on the table and make your decision that way?

Millions of Germans made the same mistake. Do you think that if Hitler were a horrible speaker, he would have had the same success promoting his appalling "Final Solution"? I refuse to believe that genocide of the Jews was "exactly the message the Germans were looking for". However, Hitler had the oratory skill to wrap his sinister plan in a message of German pride and patriotism.

Most of the media these days will do anything in their power to defame and bring down Bush in an effort to defeat him politically and morally.

I just don’t buy the whole "left-wing liberal media" argument. Most political-talkers these days are decidedly right wing(Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly) and let’s not forgot that Bush has his own news channel, deceptively labeled as "Fox News". The only reason that Bush often seems "defamed" by the media, is that he regularly defames HIMSELF. No one puts those words and phrases in his mouth. In fact, he has a whole team of writers just trying to keep his speech on point.  Yet he still manages to go "off-script" just long enough to embarrass himself.

Anyway, it’s becoming obvious that neither of us will convince the other of anything , so all of this is really a moot point. I’m sure both of us are getting tired of typing these book-length responses( I know I am)

Well, first thing, I have not been arguing that Bush is a great leader. I am merely advocating that Bush is not nearly as horrible as many people make him out to be. I would call him a decent president at this point, and depending on how events turn out a hundred years from now, he might even be labled as a good president.

I am also saying that Bush is at the very least, a capable communicator due to the fact that he was reelcted despite the smear campaign from the left, and all that Bush has had to deal with. Faltering economy, attack on the homeland, 2 expensive wars, crazy high budget deficet, and the obvious speech problem which causes everyone who has reason to dislike him to lable him an idiot.

He may have been reelected due to the simple fact that we are at war. Maybe, but I think it was more to the fact that the Democrats offered such a dismal replacement, and Bush was able to keep the discussion clear and on point.

As far as Bush’s speech problems are concerned,(I wasn’t defining his speech problems as the classic speech impediment defined by the dictionary, just referencing the issue into 2 simple words) it may very well be an education issue. But not a problem that Bush alone has had, but the entire system, most especially the southern states education systems. A lot of people just talk like that. They weren’t taught by the books to speak in that manner, but everyone they grew up with, and everyone they lived and worked with talked like that. Eventually they end up talking like that. I know 2 people from North and South Carolina that just do not speak like most other people, and it isn’t limited to accent. The south has its own dialect that defies proper english standards.

Most people, when they are talking don’t think about subject verb agreements, or whether or not a word is a proper vocabulary word. If they speak proper english, it is because that is what everyone around them speaks, how they were taught, and their verbal habits.

Kerry wasn’t the greatest choice, and neither was Bush. John Mccain would probably be a more acceptable choice for both sides. I am hoping Mccain and Rudy Giuliani try to take the Rupublican ticket in 08.

You say that republicans would vote for a monkey if he ran on the ticket, and might even be true for some people. But the same can be said of the Democrats. I have a grandfather that said once in an old crusty voice “I am a Democrat, and I will always be a Democrat”

Both sides have their share of people set in their ways, this isn’t a Republican monopoly by any means. Out of the 100 million that voted, probably only 30-50 million people who voted either side really had any flexibility in party.

I didn’t consider myself a Republican until the 2000 elections. “They misunderestimated me” might be annoying to some of you, but “I invented the internet” was plain rediculous.(credit for that would go to DARPA with the ARPANET in the 50’s-60’s) Gore’s rantings and general stupidity months/years after he lost only confirmed my vote on that one.

By the time it came to “vote” Hitler into power, I don’t really think the german people had much choice. Hitler was quite in control of the Nazi labor party well before he got elected. He already had his SS thugs(brownshirts right?), and Germany was a real mess in the early 30’s. Hitler was undoubtedly an excellent speaker, and he wouldn’t have made it so far without that ability. However, I do not think being a “great” speaker is a prerequisite for being a “great” leader, most especially in the dictatorship style governments. In democracies being a great speaker gets you elected, but you still have to do something with that election which will ultimately decide how history looks down upon you.

You say “most” political talkers and you name the 3 loudest, 2 of which happen to be on Fox News.(of course you failed to mention that Hannity also comes with Combs, the left wing side of the story) I think Fox news is the station that houses all the republicans who believe in common sense and view themselves as moderates, with a few that are outspokenly right wing. Then you have CNN(notably known as the Communist News Network), NBC(and its clones, though CNBC is pretty good about being fair most of the time), ABC, CBS, and a majority of the magazine and national newspapers being decidedly on the “left”.

The right wing is outnumbered 10 to 1 in the media, though I think Fox has the ratings to match all of them put together. The fact still stands that the number of left wing voices far outnumbers the right wing voices in the media.

And I am not just talking about defaming Bush for his grammar missteps. If a headline is bad for Bush, they put it in big bold letters all over the front page of the newspapers, websites, and headlines. If it is good for Bush, but they have the slightest headline that is bad for Bush, they will bury the good headline in the middle of a story somewhere, or on page 37 of a newspaper. It is all clouded by opinion and malicious intent. Something good happens for Bush, and on CNN you read a story downplaying it, saying how caution should be had, that it could be good, but it could also be real bad, etc. Something bad for Bush happens, and blam it is splattered all over the place with the worst outlook possible, caution to the wind. It wasn’t so much Bush/Gore that pushed me Republican, it was this crap that is splattered all over the “news” sites and shows where supposed journalists bring you this garbage they advertise as “news”.

Mass Media offers nothing but propaganda from all sides. I find that republicans are at least rational and calm with their propaganda, whereas the left wing always has some accusation, theory, or plan-without-a-plan to sell to anyone who would listen.

If the republicans are really the ones who control every media outlet, then they are running one hell of an effective system making the liberals look like clueless idealists, and themselves as calm, rational businessmen. Most cases the republicans only need to let the liberal side speak for itself and the work will take care of itself.

And yeah, we may not convince each other of anything, but it is always good to vent, and maybe we can find a common ground in either case.

We’re obviously just not going to agree on the whole "a great leader must be a great speaker" thing , so I’ll just move on to your other point:

If the republicans are really the ones who control every media outlet, then they are running one hell of an effective system making the liberals look like clueless idealists, and themselves as calm, rational businessmen. Most cases the republicans only need to let the liberal side speak for itself and the work will take care of itself.

I’ll agree that liberal Democrats often come off as(and often-times ARE) clueless idealists.

However, the statement that Republicans look like "rational businessmen" is way off-base. If you were referring to Reagan-era Republicans, maybe I would agree. What we have now is a party that has aligned itself with a radical right-wing agenda. The days of the "less-government" Republican party are over. The modern GOP seems to legislate based on religious belief; from stem cell research, to gay marriage, to the right to die. Todays Republican is more likely to be seen as the "overly-religious nosy neighbor".

I have no problem with religion. What I DO have a problem with is using political office to force a religious belief on the American public. Especially when it severely limits advancement to American medical science, as did Bush’s stem cell decision. Heck, if the Republican party should ever decide to stop looking to the likes of Jerry Falwell and James Dobson for policy approval, I may even become a Republican myself.

I’m also a fan of Giuliani. He’s one of the few Republicans not beholden to the far religious right and seems to be a very effective leader. (He’s also a pretty good speaker )

I wasn’t making the idealist/rational reference based on the policy stand of either side. It was more along the lines that republicans come to the show with facts, and they are often calmly refuting outrageous claims and assumptions from the left. The left far too often seems to be jumping to conclusions at the mere hint of bad news, and the republicans portay a more laid back common sense view of things.

As far as the republicans leaning ever more to the right, I don’t think you can blame them. The left has been on an all out offensive for the last 30 years wearing and tearing down every value most Americans take for granted. No one ever thought monument X in the courthouse Y was doing any harm, but all of a sudden, it is trampling all over a dozen people’s rights. It ends up offending a million more people than the poor oppressed people who were hurt by its presence. We suddenly have a Democracy that is no longer ruled by the majority, but by a bare minority.

And the stem cell thing, Bush took the middle ground. If it had been a religious decision, it would be banned. I don’t see why we should force atheism on this country, which is what is happening. I am agnostic myself, but damn guys give it a break. The liberals are attacking all that hints at religion when for 250 years we existed just fine with the way it was. No one was oppressed, no one was forced to do anything, or believe any way. I am sorry if the mere sight or sound of something religious is offensive to you, but the attacks are far more offensive in my mind.

It was more along the lines that republicans come to the show with facts, and they are often calmly refuting outrageous claims and assumptions from the left.

Well, that’s the way you view things as a Republican, and I’m sure a Democrat would see just the reverse.

I am sorry if the mere sight or sound of something religious is offensive to you,

Hmm, that’s an odd take on what I wrote. I could care less about the 10 commandments in a court room, "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, or any of that other silliness. What I do care about is the President using his religious convictions to tie the hands of science.

Bush DID base his decision on religion. He knew that if he tried to institute a complete ban on stem cell research(as his hardcore right wing supporters wanted), it would be overturned by Congress. So, instead he imposed as many restrictions as he felt he could "get away with", plain and simple.

No, I viewed things that way, and then I decided to vote republican, not the other way around.

I wasn’t taking your view about the monuments in courthouses, I was using the point to illustrate the all fronts offensive being executed by the left wing lately. It is driving normal joe citizens to the right wing just in an attempt to combat it. It is polarizing this country.

And Bush wasn’t tying the hands of scientists, he was tying the hands of government. Scientists can use all the private funding they can get their hands on to research stem cells. Biotech is an industry with hundreds of billions of dollars, they can take care of it. Bush just stopped any federal funds from being used on the research.

This debate is becoming pointless. You’re set in your opinion, as I am set in mine. We’ll just have to "agree to disagree" and leave it at that.