When I think of George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump, I feel the Republican Party has failed the American people by fielding the most inappropriate candidates for high public office.

I’m not talking politics; I’m simply talking “talk,” which neither men can/could do. Surely, one of the most desirable qualities in a leader is someone who can stand unscripted before groups of people and express himself/herself clearly, in whole sentences, in thoughtful responses, in substantive prose, while evaluating pros and cons of complicated issues.

Our president is the face of our nation to the world. Yet of the 300 million-plus citizens of this country, the Republicans have offered, in these two instances, men who can barely carry a sentence. Bush-isms were the mainstay of talk-show humor during his two terms; the Tweeter-in-chief, as President Trump is becoming known, has already demonstrated his dominance there.

Can humor alone sustain us through our embarrassments? Are rantings, contradictory statements, innuendo and bluster part of the new presidential lingo? We have learned that language problems belie deeper faults. That words matter.

Ironically, of the Democratic candidates they faced (Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton), one went on to win a Nobel Prize and become an international spokesman for climate change; the other two were secretaries of state, international statesmen on many stages. President Obama also won a Nobel Prize, beginning his first term as a different kind of celebrity apprentice.

We sacrifice a lot to suffer buffoonery and illogic in high places. Is it too much to ask the Republican Party to offer candidates who are articulate, thoughtful and contemplative when they seek the highest office in our land? Maybe, then, the majority of Americans could proudly vote for them.

JOHN DELANEY

Port Townsend