Fun to watch, cause you never know when he'll stumble over a word.  The best speech he gave was the one immediately after 9/11 in his State Of The Union Address.  Other than that, he seems a little bumfuzzled.

He's pretty bad, but there are far worse.

Take a look at a few alternatives:

Senator Robert Byrd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYgXRU8gCls

Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FfCAYp2ZPo

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2f8nYMCO2I&feature= related

Senator Joe Lieberman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VILQDCKd0c

This is the BEST orators of all time list, not the WORST orators of all time. Someone made a mistake and put him on the wrong list!!! I'd give him zero stars, but I'm forced to give him at least one.

How did this bozo get on here? Are you nuts?

Why is this STUPID moron on the list? Who is the blithering imbecile who put him there?

Charlie McCarthy minus Edgar Bergen was a more eloquent orator. Not only is Dubya the worst, most reckless President America has ever had to suffer through (and that includes Nixon, Reagan, Taylor, Johnson, Harding, etc.), he's the most embarrassing. I believe it was Aristotle who said, "Every country gets the government it deserves." God help America if that's true.

George Bush is a certifiably blithering MORON.
His speech injures the ear, insults the intelligence,
and stunts the soul.

Cicero was a great orator. MLK was a great orator. Frederick Douglass was a great orator. William Jennings Bryan was a great orator. Familiar with baseball? Bush is the Luis Pujols or Marc Sullivan of orators. Martha Stewart would make a better NFL running back, Don King or Kato Kaelin a better high school guidance counselor...Bush as an ORATOR? That's rich.

Bush is the Ed Wood of Orators. . .and we don't want dubya (or any president) to be a part of any alleged 'mainstream' that butchers the language. . .our leaders should be smarter than us in several respects- that's why we tend to elect them to make important decisions. When on earth did intelligence become such an anchor? In the good ol' US of A. . .

Dont take my rating the wrong way here...Ok we all know that GW is not the sharpest tack in the box where speaking is concerned, but his willingness to follow his own rules in the face of politics clearly makes up for it.

Yawn. Especially during a time of war, Bush could be making some of the most profound and quotable allocutions in the 20th century. However, he continues to chose to sound like a sound bite from the days of Wyatt Earp.

You people have the GALL to even include this dufus under the category of 'Orators'?! This spoon-fed son of great privelege shouldn't even be president of his hick town VFW! I've heard high school freshmen speak much more clearly and more articulate than this moron! Bush is a DISGRACE and EMBARRASSMENT to America, period.

Impeach the lying the bastard!!! Send him to the Hague for war crimes trial!!! Send Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Rove too!!!

Bush's extemporaneous speaking skills are fairly weak. His mistakes seem to stem from the fact that he cannot coordinate his mind with his mouth, a common problem with many speakers. Sometimes this stems from an inability to give an answer to a question asked, as was the case during the debates last year. However when he gives a speech and prepares well for it, he can be an above average speaker who points to the big picture. Many of his opponents wonder why he could be so effective given his poor speaking abilities, but one has to understand that Bush has the ability to emotionally sway a crowd. However such sophism usually leads to polarized attitudes and a substitution for passion over reason. Hence you have the very essence of Bush. For instance, Bush's 2nd Inaugural speech alluded to freedom and liberty a grand total of 47 times, the use of such words act as a tonic, a unifying vision. It makes one want to say that he speaks for all of us. It's all feel good, but one must realize that freedom can't be equated with mere symbols and rhetoric cannot be a substitute for reality. Bush makes a strong appeal to natural law as a means of justifying a philosophy of spreading liberty to other lands. Of course, this appeal is correctly placed, liberty, justice and equality are all ideals that should be universally strived for. But we have to look at the means to achieve these lofty and noble goals. We have to distinguish between the obligation to free others and the right of people to be free. Speaking of obligations, we have a duty not to violate the rights of foreigners everywhere to life, liberty and happiness, but we have a duty not to rape, rob, or wrongly imprison them. At the end of the day, an attempt to achieve a great right may end up leading to a graver evil. Tyrannical regimes are evil, but the people living under those regimes are the ones who have the obligation and responsibility to build the institutions necessary to support freedom. We cannot impose an obligation on these people; so we're being essentially authoritarian with the intent of yielding democratic institutions in foreign countries? There's a dialetical leap that's quite large! Now of course, when people choose to opt for freedom and stability, then we ought to help build up those regimes, but imposing ourselves creates even bigger problems almost every time. The bottom line is that modern American liberalism has a lot in common with neo-conservatives like George Bush. It is very therapeutic, but also very imposing. It is based on a brand of root cause thinking that dismisses logic and instead focuses in myopic solution to world problems. Elections are good, but the best result comes with stable economic and poltical institutions. An election in a country like Iraq would be choatic and will yield a result that will not be favorable for freedom. You want to break the cycle of totalitarianism, not encourage it. But I disgress as usual! In total, there are broad differences between rhetoric and reality. Buyer beware as usual.

George W. Bush is a great speaker, not intellectually, but emotionally. He uses simple words, and he repeats those same words constantly, and sometimes he may say things that dont make sense. I find it quite amusing actually. But nonetheless, he has way more charisma then John Kerry. John Kerry, in my opinion, is a walking stiff. John Kerry talks like a robot, and has no emotion emphasizing his words.

Bush is not a good speaker. The fact that he has convinced so many Americans to support his terrible policies must be due to the increasing ignorance of the public.

He's an idiot. He makes Mike Tyson look eloquent.

He's very good at putting his foot in his mouth, embarrasing americans, alienating everyone, sounding like a lunatic and just generally saying things that don't make any sense: I know its hard to put food on your family. Terrible

He's a very average slightly clunky speaker - not hideous but certainly a piker when it comes to people like Reagan, Kennedy, Clinton, or Blair. To a certain degree, I think this ability is something you're born with.

I have to say that George W. Bush is one of the worst speakers I have ever heard. I think he has his own vocabulary.