A lot of people seem to find Kerry’s manner of speaking to be tremendously amusing. The way he pauses before speaking a phrase in an almost Shatner-esque way. Al Gore did much the same thing.
After three years of Bush, it may be confusing, but…that’s how intelligent people talk. Carol Kalish spoke much the same way.
See, many people just say whatever’s running through their mind, and the phrases often don’t parse as sentences. Just ask anyone who’s ever had to transcribe an interview. In such case, more often than not, a sentence begins in one place but doesn’t end where it should because the speaker has gone off track.
Notice that when Kerry speaks, he usually does so in complete sentences. When he’s pausing, he’s mentally constructing what he’s going to say so that it will track from beginning to end. He considers his words and then uses them. By contrast, Bush just flails. He starts sentences without a clue where he’s going with them, and oftentimes trails off into confusion or dead ends. What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.
Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen. Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hëll was going through your mind.
PAD
• 
Well, I agree that what is really a sign of intelligence and thought is often distorted as its opposite (and vice versa), and hearing Rush Limbaugh talk (or reading a transcript of his shows) presents another example (and I’m only mentioning Limbaugh because it’s the only example I can think of off the top of my head of someone who’s speech I’ve read unedited), but man if I wasn’t suprised to see to see “PAD” instead of “Glenn” at the end of that entry, Peter, as it is possibly the most rhetorical and least reasoned comment I’ve ever seen you direct at your political opposites.
“Notice that when Kerry speaks, he usually does so in complete sentences.”
And yet amazingly says nothing substantive, meaningful, or even truthful. I’ll take inarticulate words that I can at least trust Bush means, rather than the blather Kerry serves up.
that’s how intelligent people talk
Sorry, but you’re wrong on this PAD. Clinton is equally, if not more intelligent, and yet he does not talk in the pedantic manner that Kerry does. On the flipside, Reagan wasn’t an intellectual heavyweight, but he could sell a speech. So you’re drawing a correlation without basis.
You know, as a registered Republican, i am seriously considering my true party loyalty. Not because Bush is an idiot, but because every other Republican i know immediately falls in line to defend him. I know these people, I know they aren’t stupid, but they continue to defend him.
Democrat, Republican, Whatever. Bush is just plain an idiot. With every passing day i am more embarassed and ashamed that he even got the GOP nomination four years ago over McCain.
Very interesting PAD. Not sure if its entirely true, but it is an interesting observation. I can say that I’ve met many intelligent people who couldn’t speak to people in a random mannerism very similar to how Shrub2 speaks, but could write the socks off a reader. Speaking fluently and eloquently to an audience isn’t necessarily a sign of intelligence, it seems to be more of a quality. Some people have it and some don’t. Same with intelligence. Kerry has it. Shrub2 does not. And I’ll bet your right about the next generations questionings. I’m questioning myself as to how it happened. There are so many more “liberals” than there are “conservatives” in this country. If only 2/3 of the liberals voted the conservatives would lose every major election. But sadly the liberal youth is so apathetic to the voting that it becomes a race. Hopefully things will change this election. Especially if we get rid of the Dibold machines…
As one famous president said, “Well there you go again.” I remember many of the same things being said about Reagan 20 years ago, and he is still highly respected by a large number of people. In fact, for those willing to do so, read the book of his letters. These are not speeches written for him, these are personal letters showing the depth of his convictions and his great ability to communicate.
But I digress. I agree that of the two, Kerry is more articulate. But I also believe that of the two, Bush is saying what he really means. Kerry is measuring his words, but without the skill of Bill Clinton. Bush is not eloquent, but neither is he an idiot. Kerry is eloquent, but he is very uninspiring. There is a huge difference between being well spoken and being condescending. I find Kerry condescending.
As mentioned above by others, I am actually surprised by your post. Our political views are very far apart, but you normally do not demean people by saying those who support Bush are uneducated. I am amazed how someone’s dislike (or even hatred) for a president can influence a debate. I saw it with how people treated Clinton. I disagreed with Clinton’s policies but rejected the personal attacks on him (such as the allegations he had people murdered while governor of Arkansas). I see it now with Bush. I can understand your disagreeing with Bush’s policy in Iraq. But your underestimating his ability to think is pointless. Bush has been very effective as president (tax cuts, education, the war on terror). You may not like what he did, but there is no question that he did not just talk about things — he did them.
So I don’t think you will be voting for Bush anytime soon. But if you really want to see him out of the White House, you might want to look below the “flailing” words and see that he does get his point across.
James in Iowa
“Sorry, but you’re wrong on this PAD. Clinton is equally, if not more intelligent, and yet he does not talk in the pedantic manner that Kerry does. On the flipside, Reagan wasn’t an intellectual heavyweight, but he could sell a speech. So you’re drawing a correlation without basis.”
Sorry, but you’re wrong on this, Matt. Go watch Clinton in any of the debates. When asked a question, he pauses, thinks, considers the answer for a good long time before responding. In other words, he does what Kerry does. Nor do I agree that Kerry is pedantic. I watched him on “Meet the Press,” a full hour, and he wasn’t pedantic at all. A brief clip from a stump speech, which is how most people judge him, doesn’t begin to compare to just watching him in relaxed conversation for sixty minutes. He’s getting a bad rap from that gosh-darned liberal media. As for Reagan, of course he could sell a speech. Big deal. It was pre-scripted, he was an actor.
So, what you’re saying is anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.
And I think in 50 years people will be wondering why the hëll we kept adhering to this silly two party system when both parties had been corrupted and stopped actually being anything more than self perpetuating money machines for very small minorities.
That you buy the Democrats lies is as sad to me as the fact that other people buy the Republicans lies.
Wake up. Neither party offers any real alternative. Why argue over which man’s gonna bûggër you? They’re both gonna do it, you might as well just flip a coin, bend over and lube up.
Or you could actually think for yourself and stop being a follower of a party.
Peter, stick to writing comic books. I like your comic books.
“I agree that of the two, Kerry is more articulate. But I also believe that of the two, Bush is saying what he really means. Kerry is measuring his words, but without the skill of Bill Clinton. Bush is not eloquent, but neither is he an idiot. Kerry is eloquent, but he is very uninspiring. There is a huge difference between being well spoken and being condescending. I find Kerry condescending.”
And having listened to Kerry for a sustained period of time, I don’t. I have no doubt that Bush says what he means. So what? There’s no automatic merit in that. That a man who has screwed up so consistently is so intellectually stunted that he cannot come up with a single mistake shows arrogance far and above any alleged condescension from Kerry. And yes, Bush is an idiot. The last thing he said that I ever agreed with him on is that the US shouldn’t be in the business of nation building. That was back in 1999. Too bad that mistake didn’t occur to him when asked.
“As mentioned above by others, I am actually surprised by your post. Our political views are very far apart, but you normally do not demean people by saying those who support Bush are uneducated.”
Nor did I say that here. I said, and I quote, “What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.”
First, I said “many,” not “all.” Second, I never said “uneducated.” Third, I wasn’t limiting it to Bush supporters. Considering the staggering illiteracy rate in this country and the fact that many people *don’t* read (80% of book sales in this country are made by 5% of the population), I’d say it’s more a case of the country as a whole getting exactly the president it deserves.
PAD
“So, what you’re saying is anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.”
No, although I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that anyone who reinterprets what I say and attacks the reinterpretation is an idiot, if that’s of any help. And people who say “Stick to comics” also strike me as idiots, if for no other reason than I haven’t been sticking only to comics in twenty years of writing. So if you don’t want to come across as an idiot, you might want to reconsider the tactic. Just a thought.
This country has a history of doing stupid things that are appalling to subsequent generations. Jailing people simply for speaking out against the government. Interring Japanese-American citizens. Destroying the careers and lives in anti-Communist witch hunts. And these stupid things are supported by learned men at the time, ranging from Supreme Court justices to presidents. Men whom no reasonable person could think of as idiots.
I don’t think anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. I don’t even think that anyone who supports Bush is stupid. I do think, however, that thirty years from now, they’ll regret that they did, in the same way that they now might look with embarrassment at pictures of themselves in leisure suits from the 1970s and say, “What the hëll was I thinking?”
PAD
Well, so much for that “no ad hominem, personal attacks or rhetoric” resolution from a while back. 🙂
Peter David: I have no doubt that Bush says what he means. So what? There’s no automatic merit in that. That a man who has screwed up so consistently is so intellectually stunted that he cannot come up with a single mistake shows arrogance far and above any alleged condescension from Kerry.
Luigi Novi: Or, as one poster suggested on the blog thread devoted to that point some time back, that Bush simply didn’t want to take the bait of a reporter who may have been looking for a sound bite.
(Btw, anyone know who asked Bush that question, and whether he or she had political leanings of record? That blog entry by Peter didn’t mention the identity of the reporter.)
Dee:
Hmm, speaking of illiterate…
First off, what makes his medals phony?
Second off, is there anything in that rant even approaching coherent writing?
Third, Bush ain’t exactly a po boy. Hëll, he isn’t even from Texas. I’ve never been east of Four Corners and I’m more authentically southern than him.
If you want to see a flipflopper, nothing beats Bush’s record. All of Kerry’s supposed “waffles” are from taking votes that occured 15 years apart out of context and comparing them to each other. “Oh no! He voted for a tax increase in 1984 and voted against one in the 1990s! Whatever shall we do?”
Also, off topic, I bought Negima volume 1 today and I just wanna congratulate Peter on a bangup job. You don’t know how worried sick I was that it’d end up like one of TokyoPop’s “translations”.(For those unfamiliar, with Battle Royale they essentially erased the text from the bubbles and then completely made everything up off the top of their head.) Anyway, it was a pretty big shock to open the inside cover and see your name on the copyright page. Generally, my only problem is the shortening of “Library Expedition Club” to “Library Club” on the class roster. I don’t know many normal library clubs that conduct their activities with headlamps and climbing gear…of course, since half of Volume 2 focuses on them, that’ll probably be fixed.
The mess in Iraq is growing bigger day by day. The more I hear and see about it, the more disgusted I am.
Not only was Bush unable and unwilling to answer the question what is biggest mistake was, he was even unable and unwilling to apologize for the torture Iraqis suffered in the hands of US soldiers. Also today, there was a lot of talk going on in British news that the reputation of the USA is suffering more and more in the Arab world. Definitely – but not just there. It also happens in Western countries, including Britain.
(And, yes, I know and have seen some of the torture photos showing alleged torturing of Iraqi prisoners by British soldiers, but there are serious doubts about their authenticity. First of all, you don`t see any faces on these photos and I find it very strange that they appeared just after the release of the US torture pictures).
Now I even heard about Iraqi prisoners being murdered by US soldiers. I also heard that it took a long time until US papers, and the media in general, reported what is going on. Here it was headline news immediately, also the alleged photos showing Iraqis tortured by British soldiers appeared quickly on the front pages. I am not living in the USA, therefore I am curious: Is there the same feeling of outrage in the population in the USA as it is here? I very much hope so!
To me, Bush is simply not re-electable. Of course I am no US citizen, so that my opinion doesn`t make a difference here: I can`t vote either way. But I know, should Bush lose, it will help to regain some of the respect the USA lost.
“Looks like I’ll have to stop coming here. If you think your anti war hero Kerry is going to beat Bush you really are in for a rude awakening. I can’t wait to see Kerry’s expression when he actually loses something. Take your rich anti war hero and shove him. Im from the samne state as he is and Im ashamed of it just like all the Anti’s who were ashames of being from Texas.”
Actually, I’ve said the exact opposite, repeatedly: That Kerry is likely going to lose.
But thanks for trying to prove that I don’t know what I’m talking about when I say people don’t read and there’s a literacy problem in this country. Boy, you sure showed ME.
PAD
“Well, so much for that “no ad hominem, personal attacks or rhetoric” resolution from a while back. :-)”
As I recall, I simply said we would endeavor to be civil to one another. I have been, despite the endeavors by others to try and recharacterize my comments into the most insulting form possible. I think saying, “If you don’t want to come across as an idiot, you might want to reconsider the tactic” was pretty civil.
As for the “sound bite” business, Luigi, I still maintain you’re giving him way too much credit. His expression, his confusion, his complaining that he wished he’d had the question in advance, all cleary indicated that he was simply clueless. And I think just standing there looking dumb was a far more damaging sound bite than any other answer he could have said.
PAD
“Second off, is there anything in that rant even approaching coherent writing?”
Yeah, that was kind of the point I was endeavoring to make.
Glad you liked “Negima,” by the way. Kath and I were pretty nervous as to how the final product would be received since we’d never done anything like this before.
PAD
“Reagan wasn’t an intellectual heavyweight, but he could sell a speech.” Matt Alder.
True. Then again Ronald Reagan was a trained, professional actor before he entered politics.
He was even a pitchman for Borax soap. Anyone remember “Death Valley Days”?
But a likeable public persona alone does not make a canidate.
Or at least it shouldn’t.
“Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen. Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hëll was going through your mind.”
I for one doubt this very much. I think history will look back on Bush mostly favorably. Granted, he won’t be viewed as the greatest president, but one of the better ones who tried to do something to better this nation. And in 30 year, people will be looking back and wondering how the liberal left became so bitter and petty with all of their senseless attacks. History will deem these miguided fools of the left as the “enemy within.” I’m just hoping that this nation can withstand this subversive enemy and that in 30 years we’ll still be a great nation and not have fallen due to the spreading disease known as liberalism.
I don’t really see the point in calling Bush an idiot. If someone likes Bush they are just going to say your being mean and unfair. If they don’t like Bush…so what they already don’t like him. Maybe it gives you some satisfaction??? Whatever the reason for using the word (and correct me if I’m wrong) you seem to base your judgement on his manner of speaking. No doubt public speaking is very important for any leader and I admit he’s not the best speaker we’ve had, but I really don’t see how you can call him an idiot.
Peter David:” I have no doubt that Bush says what he means. So what? There’s no automatic merit in that. “
For a politican I would have to say that quality has merit.
I think polls show that most people don’t know much about Kerry and pretty much parrot the anti-Kerry ads the Bush folks have run and run. (That’s the advantage of so much money–remember, as bad as it was, a lot of people tried the New Coke in the 80’s, because everyone saw the ads!)
One hope is that Kerry will do many relaxed extended interviews and town hall meetings so voters can see him at length and get comfortable with him–and not let the Bush people define him as Gore part 2 (smarter than others, relies on polls too much, lies–wait, those last ones may be about the Bush people). The Bush people don’t seem to trust the president with longer interviews–his appearance on MEET THE PRESS was the start of some bad poll down turns. I’m guessing whatever debate format will be chosen by Bush won’t allow anything beyond prepared news bites.
One major observation in these partisan times–Bush voters don’t like to be told how bad Bush is. It makes them defend him all the more. (His poll numbers bounced up the last few weeks during the downturn with the war.) Saying that Bush is a blight could make them feel stupid for voting for him–and no one wants to think they are stupid. Problem is–I don’t know how one can dish on Bush without making his supporters feel stupid. And he has extremely fervent fans who, like Bush, can’t conceive that mistakes have been made in the first place.
It’s going to be a long summer–and possibly 4 years. (Think of Bush with no reason at all to moderate his views because he’ll never have to worry about reelection!)
“I for one doubt this very much. I think history will look back on Bush mostly favorably. Granted, he won’t be viewed as the greatest president, but one of the better ones who tried to do something to better this nation. And in 30 year, people will be looking back and wondering how the liberal left became so bitter and petty with all of their senseless attacks. History will deem these miguided fools of the left as the “enemy within.” I’m just hoping that this nation can withstand this subversive enemy and that in 30 years we’ll still be a great nation and not have fallen due to the spreading disease known as liberalism.”
In 30 years, after the terrorism inspired fearmongering has subsided, I see Bush being labeled as one of the most corrupt presidencies in recent times. There are far too many unethical sutuations ( from the exposing of undercover CIA agents to the suspiciously cozy corporate connections to the outright lies that have been told to the US public to the disastrous war of choice in Iraq) that are glossed over at the moment because we are supposedly at war and most feel uncomfortable criticizing a President during war time even one such as this.
If not for the Iraq War I feel that Bush would be in the middle of impeachment hearings right now for his misappropriation of funds and for his outright lies and attempted cover up of the cost of his Medicare bill.
And if people will look back at this time and deem the Dems bitter and petty then I think they’d also lump the GOP in with them based on the eight years of hysterical hatred that was aimed at Bill Clinton ( and still seems to creep up on a daily basis despite the fact that Clinton isn’t president anymore).
You’d think after so many years of throwing šhìŧ that the Republicans wouldn’t be such whiny girls when the crap comes flying back at them.
It was mentioned above, but immediately buried in ad hominem attacks, that Bush has made at least one colossal error which he fails to admit.
Either he was wrong during his campaign against Gore, when he said the US had no business being part of any nation-building process, or he’s wrong now, when he’s engaged the US in an almost single-handed nation-building process. One or the other, folks – they can’t both be true…
…and the Kerry “waffle” examples all seem to need at least a 15-year period to compare on! 🙂
Sorry, but no matter how Kerry says what he says it’s the CONTENT that matters. For example–he is now claiming that a recent speach where he said that he would consider sending Jimmy Carter as a middle east envoy was actually put in there by overzealous speach writers. When it was pointed out that he specifically said in the speach that he had called Carter and spoken to him about this proposal he then claimed that he HAD indeed done so but only AFTER reading the speach and seeing that he was SUPPOSED to have already talked to him.
Think about it.
I mean, wow. Manchurian candidate, anyone? But with Kerry it’s ALWAYS some underlings fault. If he wins it’s going to be comedy gold for Saturday Night Live.
And 20, 30, 50, years from today I’ll be proud to have my thoughts preserved, I suspect. Right or wrong, they were based on reason, not emotional needs to be right or better than anyone else.
Peter, it’s not the silences, altho the comedians do have fun with the Shatneresque style (altho considering his great run currently on THE PRACTICE as “Denny Crane” I might change that to Kirkesque), it’s what said.
Saying that he actually voted for the 87 million for the troops in Iraq before voting against it . . . Bush campaigners couldn’t have made a better anti-Kerry quote.
And as badly as Bush did on MEET THE PRESS, Tim Russert tore Kerry a new one, by using audio from Russert’s competition, FACE THE NATION, to play Kerry saying before voting against the 87 million that even if the tax breaks for the rich were left in that no politician would vote against the 87 million, against the troops.
It’s not the silences, it’s what said. Then again after several decades in the senate, it’s somewhat understandable, except Joe Biden of Delaware, John McCain of Arizona, or Ðìçk Durbin from Illinois, all long-time politicians and senators, yet can string together sentences that are reasonably clear.
True, Bush is a far less articulate off the cuff or off the script, but then if elections were about the better speaker, then Al Sharpton would have gotten the nomination, or at least John Edwards. Then again, Bush has beaten more articulate speakers: Ann Richards, Al Gore (despite a time of peace with a great economy and surpluses as far as the eye could see) and in a time of a losing war (or maybe a losing “peace”), an economy struggling to recover, is edging out John Kerry.
— Ken from Chicago
P.S. Yes, Bush did beat Gore in 2000, in Gore’s home state of Tennessee, Clinton’s home state of Arkansas and won the electoral vote in Florida. It’s not like Gore didn’t know about the electoral college. The major media have all mentioned as far back as 1980 someone could conceivably win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote. Eight years as Veep, and Gore did nothing to get rid of the electoral college
P.P.S. Contrary to popular myth, Florida was NOT the state with the most voting “irregularities” in the 2000 general presidential election. That “honor” belongs here, to Illinois, home of Chicago, where the motto “Vote early, vote often” has become cliche. Even in a state where only one Republican holds state-wide office, jack squat has been done toward eliminating or even simplifying the electoral college system, and little has been done about the balloting system. While some of the richer suburbs have gotten spiffy new ballot machines, punch ballots, akin, tho not identical, to Florida are still being used in Chicagoland area.
P.P.P.S. I’m neither pro-Bush or pro-Kerry. In a choice between two evils, I choose not. Or as George Carlin put it, “If you vote then you have no right to complain.” Or as Norman Jewison wrote in the movie AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, which Al Pacino got to say, “I’m not out of order, the whole system’s out of order!”
Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen.
Which is ironic, since just the other day I asked my mom to explain President Ford.
“Which is ironic, since just the other day I asked my mom to explain President Ford. “
I once saw Ford described in a magazine as “a man who through sheer decency pulled a shattered country together.” I think that’s a fair description. At the time I was outraged that he pardoned Nixon, and there’s no question in my mind that it cost him reelection. But in retrospect I think he was right: Enough was enough.
” I’m just hoping that this nation can withstand this subversive enemy and that in 30 years we’ll still be a great nation and not have fallen due to the spreading disease known as liberalism.”
Ahhh, so now liberals aren’t just unpatriotic, but “subversive.” Perhaps not everyone believes that McCarthyism was a bad idea…
PAD
” I’m just hoping that this nation can withstand this subversive enemy and that in 30 years we’ll still be a great nation and not have fallen due to the spreading disease known as liberalism.”
PAD:
>>Ahhh, so now liberals aren’t just unpatriotic, but “subversive.” Perhaps not everyone believes that McCarthyism was a bad idea…
Huh, for a moment I thought that “subversive” was being used to describe our president.
I don’t know if Kerry can think fast enough on his fee and has weel-enough designs planned laid out for if he does win, but he can score a HUGE victory in the public eye and help his chances if he goes out and does a lot of unscripted, “don’t-know-the-Q’s-in-advance” interviews and town hall meeting-type events.
Bush and his crew have done everything in their power to obscure what’s going on in the White House and to keep Americans as in the dark as they can.
If Kerry can show the people that he can think on his feet, and try to answer questions without GWB’s stammering and total non-answers, that’ll give him a tremendous boost as a man who at least can speak…
You guys don’t understand: Part of me is really hoping Bush is reelected.
Why? Because, without exception, every second term presidency in the past fifty years has become overwhelmed by scandal, misdeeds and wrongdoing on every level. Right now Bush still has defenders. If history holds–and considering the multiple debacles already in progress–a second term would be a fiasco of such epic proportions that even his most devoted apologists would have to throw in the towel. Granted, there won’t be much left of the country, but hopefully the Democrats following him can rebuild.
Second term of Bush: Bring it on.
PAD
I love it when people are on the wrong side of history. Just as people supported slavery (which party), and wanted the US to stay out of WW2 (which party?), and felt that communism was no threat (which party?) I agree that in 30 years people will look back and think “what were they thinking?”. Of course the question is, “which party?”.
I love it peter! Cut off your nose to spite your face! Not saying I disagree but its just a crazy thing to do to the country (letting him get re-elected), nyah , nyah told ya so. But, hey if the followers of this man believe in him so much let’s see how far they are willing to follow him so blindly. How many freedoms will deteriorate, how many more battles we will become engaged in, how far the environment will deteriorate, how far the economy will slide. I fear this man but, like you said Peter lets see this man crumble, fall and burst into flames. Well, not waht you said but just what I am hoping for. 😉
Yes I see how much like Clinton Kerry is, he thinks about what he is to say and presents it in an articlulate, intellegent manner….
“It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
Yep, Just Like Clinton
With each passing day, I think more and more about moving to Costa Rica. Saddly, there are no comic shops there. Ah well.
I am frankly getting tired of political debate. Bush sucks. That’s a given. His is an administration that is full of industry insiders and ideological fanatics. I don’t want him to be president anymore. Gore, oops, I mean Kerry, also sucks. He has no political acumen. He has a war record and political record that are incredible assets, and he gets bogged down on the difference between a medal and a ribbon. And he has yet to really define his vision for America. I don’t think I want him as President either.
Conservatives suck. They are so smug and so rigedly committed to their point of view that they cannot even conceed when they are wrong. Liberals suck. They are so smug and rigidly committed to their point of view that they cannot even conceed when they are wrong.
BTW, Democrats were the party of states rights in the Civil War, but Republicans were actually the party that underestimated Communism and Hitler. Truman and Kennedy were far more hawkish on Communism, and more prone to use the CIA for “mischeif” than Eisenhower, or even Nixon, were. The problem with being on the wrong side of history is that you won’t known you are on the wrong side for twenty or thirty years. So everyone, you liberals and you conservatives, when you open your mouths. And for God’s sake, have a sense of humor. Somebody throw a pie!
Ben Hunt
Funny what pushes someone’s buttons. I’m used to the unfounded Bush-bashing, but comparing Carol to Kerry is horrifying (admittedly, I only spoke with Carol a few times on the phone and don’t know her – or love her – anywhere near as much as Peter, but I had (have) a high opinion of her).
I suspect thirty years from now we’ll look back with knowledge of the full scope of terrorism and ask “how is it so many of us are still alive? Oh, yeah, GWB.”
What would destroy the country is Hillary in Presidential office for any amount of time. There’s a terrifying thought.
“lot of people seem to find Kerry’s manner of speaking to be tremendously amusing. The way he pauses before speaking a phrase in an almost Shatner-esque way. Al Gore did much the same thing. After three years of Bush, it may be confusing, but…that’s how intelligent people talk.”
Plenty of intelligent people talk like neither Shatner or Kerry and plenty of unintelligent people talk like they do.
Peter, thanks for bringing up something that’s been bothering me for a long time, which is this: when all is said and done, history is going to judge this presidency very harshly, and yet the occupants of the Oval Office seem blithely unaware of this. I suppose when you’ve got an Evangelical president who believes in the Rapture, none of it matters anyway; ‘I’ll just be taken up with the rest of the devout ones, so it doesn’t matter about the world left behind.’
“What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.”
Can anyone tell me how that is NOT just a long winded roundabout way of calling Bush supporters idiots?
Let’s see, Bush supporters don’t read much, have only a vague grasp of the English language, and get annnoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than them. That’s an idiot where I come from.
If you’re gonna say somehting, have the balls to defend it and not pretend it’s NOT what you said. That’s what you said, even an idiot can understand that’s a highly rhetorical slam against people who support Bush.
It’s exactly the same as Bush supporters who claim Kerry supporters are cowardly terrorist appeasers.
The rhetoric on both sides is disgusting and the people caught up in all of it will one day regret it. This doesn’t help anyone. This strict adherence to party lines and refusal to think outside the box is what got us in trouble in the first place.
I’m done with this. Go on fight your insipid rhetorical war of words while the country goes down the drain because BOTH parties are corrupt and you’re too stubborn to admit it.
Peter has a right to say whatever he wants, whether we agree with him or not. This is America, and I – for one – respect his right to be so outspoken in so public a fashion. I may not always agree with you, PAD, but I’ll defend your right to say what you want with my dying breath. Whether I like what you’ve said or not.
Bud
Joe:
>Peter, thanks for bringing up something that’s been bothering me for a long time, which is this: when all is said and done, history is going to judge this presidency very harshly, and yet the occupants of the Oval Office seem blithely unaware of this. I suppose when you’ve got an Evangelical president who believes in the Rapture, none of it matters anyway; ‘I’ll just be taken up with the rest of the devout ones, so it doesn’t matter about the world left behind.’
Joe, I’ve actually had the opposite impression. Bush appears to have become more non-forthcoming, resistant, and steadfast as more people have inquired about situations or brought up concerns. A year ago he simply dismissed criticisms. Recently, he appears aggravated, condescending, and critical of anyone who doesn’t agree with his tactics.
The Iraqi WMDs are in Syria!
The UN is a scandel filled horrer!
Bin Laden is dead!
The terrorists are REAL and they are losing!!!!!!!
Your economy is doing great!
I’m black, PAD. In thirty years I’ll probably dead. Even if I’m not, I’m not likely to care or remember what happen thirty years before.
If I do, I ‘ll be lying on my Bahamas beach hideaway, wondering how they could have gotten that Global Warming thing so wrong, and thinking, “I’ll bet Peter David feels like a fool right about now.”
“Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen.”
I kind of look at this sense of revulsion as starting with Clinton, continuing with Bush but in different symptons of revulsion, and cannot but anticipate continued illness with either a Kerry or Bush victory.
PAD wrote: “Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hëll was going through your mind.”
No, historians 30 years hence will marvel how the two largest political parties in the United States could not find a candidate who was appealling to a majority of Americans for both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections.
I’m still waiting for Kerry to give me SOME reason to think about voting for him. Does he have any specific PLANS about ANYTHING? Does he have ANY vision that is more than just the same old rehashed rhetoric?
“I’m for more jobs, better education for our children, and better health care for all Americans,” Kerry says. Well, duh. What serious political contender in the past 200 years HASN’T said he or she is for these things? If Kerry would tell me specifically HOW he plans to get these and other campaign promises accomplished, he’d get my attention. So far, however, the “ABB” reason is all I hear Democrats bandy about (Anyone But Bush). That just doesn’t cut it with THIS independent voter.
Go watch Clinton in any of the debates. When asked a question, he pauses, thinks, considers the answer for a good long time before responding. In other words, he does what Kerry does.
It’s one thing to pause BEFORE answering a question. It’s another thing to pause after every few words. Kerry has these long run-on sentences, full of qualifiers, where he never gets to the point and thereby loses people on his message. I’m not just going by soundbites. I watch the Kerry events, hoping to get a sense that this guy can seize hold of the American psyche, give it a good shaking, and say “Wake up!” But he’s just putting everyone on snooze. I’m really starting to think Dean would have been the better candidate. He could get people’s attention. He could communicate a position clearly and boldly.
I watched him on “Meet the Press,” a full hour, and he wasn’t pedantic at all.
I’d agree he is stronger in that one on one format, but he still has trouble getting to the point. I think it stems from his career in the Senate, where being long-winded is an asset. In any event, he might do better in his speeches if could imagine himself talking to just one person, rather than making a speech on the Senate floor.
As for Reagan, of course he could sell a speech. Big deal. It was pre-scripted, he was an actor.
90% of these campaigns are pre-scripted. Heck, they go into the interviews with talking points, and are instructed by their staff not to veer away from them. Kerry’s got learn some of those acting skills if he wants to win.
“Yes I see how much like Clinton Kerry is, he thinks about what he is to say and presents it in an articlulate, intellegent manner….
“It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
Yep, Just Like Clinton.”
“It’s not really ‘torture’ – it’s ‘abuse’!”
Sounds like Rumsfeld to me (and Rummy never did say why he seemed to think that “abuse” was OK)…
For some supposedly so intelligent….I find it amazing he could support every piece of major legislation proposed by a supposed idiot.
PAD: “Second term of Bush: Bring it on.”
Peter,
As a fellow liberal, I have had this thought as well. Unfortunately, a few minutes of thought will reveal that the price is too high.
If Bush is given another four years in office, that’s a long time to pack the Federal benches and (god forbid) the Supreme Court with anti-choice and anti-privacy advocates. That’s a price that we will pay for years and decades to come.
As both of us are fathers with daughters, the possibility of back alley abortions scares the hëll out of me. As both of us are writers with a liberal bent, how long will we last in an environnent where Ashcroft is given a mandate from the people? As both of us are free thinkers who have gotten quite comfortable with the freedom to speak our minds, how long will it be until we are both up against the wall enjoying that last cigarette?
It’s too high a price to pay for satisfaction.
Spreading liberalism? Shyeah. Liberalism has been contracting since before I was born (1970). Compared to that near-mythical Back Then, the most left-leaning politicians in the Democratic party are almost conservatives. The Democratic governor of Kansas sounded like a moderate Republican when on the campaign trail.
You know, some of my friends think I hate Bush. I don’t hate Bush. I don’t think he’s out to destroy civilization as we know it. I tend not to agree with him.
But you know what irks me? What really irks me? Republicans had a fantastic alternative in the 2000 nominating process, and somehow, that fantastic alternative got passed over for Bush.
That alternative was John McCain. I’m a registered Democrat, but I actually strongly contemplated breaking ranks with my party and voting for McCain if he were to get the nomination. Don’t get me wrong…Sen. McCain and I disagree on several key issues. But what strikes me about Senator McCain is that he has substance. Admittedly, I’ve never been in the same room with him. I’ve never chatted it up with him. My perceptions may be off-base. But he struck me as principled, decent, deliberative, compassionate, genuinely interested in serving his country instead of serving himself, and substantial. To this day, I wish I’d had the opportunity to vote for him.
I’m reminded of a flashback episode of “The West Wing,” where Bartlet is trailing as a dark horse candidate. Leo and Bartlet are standing in the street talking about Bartlet’s decision to run, and Leo says, “I’m sick and tired of settling…of choosing the lesser of who cares.” That sums up my impressions perfectly.
Yes, Kerry is perhaps more articulate, deliberative, and intelligent than Bush. I’ve tried getting behind Kerry. I’ve listened to him, I’ve seen the debates, I’ve been an almost daily visitor to his website, trying to find some substantive hook upon which I can lay my loyalty. I ordered Kerry bumper-stickers, but I’ve no desire to put them on my car yet, because Kerry has yet to truly define himself as anything other than a Vietnam veteran who is not Bush.
But I don’t want Bush to get a second term. Well, to restate that, I can see PAD’s point. Bush and Kerry are both thoroughly unexciting. If Bush wins, then maybe after four more years, the country will be worn out enough to vote for real change. But I dread that happening, for what could happen in that four year interim? But Kerry’s not a strong candidate that I can get behind either, so having four years of politics-as-usual under Kerry is not an exciting prospect either.
As to the suggestion that there’s this creeping menace of liberalism, I’d have to counter by saying there’s likewise a creeping menace of conservative thought pervading the country at the moment. Political ideology in general can be subversive and counter-productive, and to suggest that trading one ideology for another is somehow “safer” seems a little naive to me.
I’ve become so politically cynical, and that’s saying something, because I was a double major in Political Science and English in college. Maybe it’s not that I’m politically cynical. Maybe it’s that I’m just too dámņëd idealistic, in that I want President Bartlet instead of Bush/Kerry. I want a President of substance. I don’t think I’ll get that any time soon, because the political party machine on both sides of the aisle is too busy chugging out candidates who serve special interests instead of the best interests of the country.
That’s all just my opinion, though. I respect those who disagree with me, and certainly, I mean no offense.
What bothers me almost as much as Bush’s mistakes is his refusal to asknowledge them. Over 500 U.S. soldiers killed after he declared an end to major hostilities? He wasn’t wrong, he just meant going after Hussein himself. Tax cuts benefit the rich but outsourcing still rampant? It’s working, we just have to stay the course. Pictures of U.S. soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners? He’s abhorred — but no apologies.
Intelligent people make mistakes, acknowlegde them, and learn from them. Bush seems either so deeply in denial in his failures or so committed to saying he was right that he can’t acknowledge ANY errors.