I have misunderestimated The Times

Babble on.

I found a great deal to like about this article by Tim Hames in The Times. Not only does he make some thought-provoking assertions about the upcoming U.S. election and prognostication about a Bush second term, but he does it with humour:

GEORGE W. BUSH’S political ally may be Tony Blair, but his linguistic soulmate is surely John Prescott. Like the Deputy Prime Minister, the President has a relationship with the English language that might be kindly described as experimental. It is akin to that which a tribesman from the depths of the Amazonian rainforest might have with a mobile telephone. Buttons will be pressed, but what emerges is basically a mystery. Mr Bush is thus perhaps the first President of the United States to require an interpreter when addressing an audience that consists entirely of his fellow citizens.

I must confess, guiltily, that I too prefer to read Bush's speeches rather than listen to them. And before I get the WTF comments from my rabid right-wing readers (I'll have you know I now have to take off my socks to count them), no, I am not Bush-bashing just because I admit he's not a world-class orator.

How did I turn this post into a discussion of public-speaking in American politics? Before I wander even further afield from my intended point, I'll remind you to read the whole article and ask yourself if Bush will break the 'lame duck' pattern as he's broken so many others in his short political career.

Babble off.