Saturday, April 17, 2004
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Mark, to answer your comment below without having to post 3 comments of my own:
Easy for you to say, because you are clear in your views. Whatever Bush has done that I have not agreed with, he has always seemed genuine to me. But last night, that obvious non answer of the question as to why he would be sitting with Cheney at the commission vs. them doing sessions alone made me feel, well, a bit disappointed. And I'm a supporter! How's it going to make other people feel? Realistically, the choice is not as stark to most people as it is to you or I, and those are the people that he needs to win over to win the election. Yes, 90% of the populace has probably already decided how they will vote, 45% hate Bush (the anyone but Bush bumper sticker crowd) and will vote for his opponent, 45% either like Bush, trust Bush, or believe that his foreign policy overrides any other issue that they don't agree on, and will vote for him. It's winning that 10% that we're concerned with. Bumbling his words has never bothered me, and I don't think that it matters. Being able to answer a question without sounding "pat" is another thing altogether. The Iraq oil revenues? He had NO clue as to what they were, just that they were "good" (last time he was briefed anyway). I mean we know he can't be on top of everything, but in these situations he has to seem like he's on top of everything, and that question should have been obvious, and easily prepared for. See, it's hard for people to know exactly where Kerry stands, so how is it clear cut? If they don't like Bush even a little, and they are leaning to Kerry, he can make everyone feel that he agrees with them no matter what their opinion. These are usually self deluding people, but hey, the reality is they exist, and they vote. So while to us it seems a very stark choice, to the uninformed, NBC nightly news watching, non political junkies it isn't so clear.
Easy for you to say, because you are clear in your views. Whatever Bush has done that I have not agreed with, he has always seemed genuine to me. But last night, that obvious non answer of the question as to why he would be sitting with Cheney at the commission vs. them doing sessions alone made me feel, well, a bit disappointed. And I'm a supporter! How's it going to make other people feel? Realistically, the choice is not as stark to most people as it is to you or I, and those are the people that he needs to win over to win the election. Yes, 90% of the populace has probably already decided how they will vote, 45% hate Bush (the anyone but Bush bumper sticker crowd) and will vote for his opponent, 45% either like Bush, trust Bush, or believe that his foreign policy overrides any other issue that they don't agree on, and will vote for him. It's winning that 10% that we're concerned with. Bumbling his words has never bothered me, and I don't think that it matters. Being able to answer a question without sounding "pat" is another thing altogether. The Iraq oil revenues? He had NO clue as to what they were, just that they were "good" (last time he was briefed anyway). I mean we know he can't be on top of everything, but in these situations he has to seem like he's on top of everything, and that question should have been obvious, and easily prepared for. See, it's hard for people to know exactly where Kerry stands, so how is it clear cut? If they don't like Bush even a little, and they are leaning to Kerry, he can make everyone feel that he agrees with them no matter what their opinion. These are usually self deluding people, but hey, the reality is they exist, and they vote. So while to us it seems a very stark choice, to the uninformed, NBC nightly news watching, non political junkies it isn't so clear.
I believe John Derbyshire and I share a brain. I think just like this and pretty much agree with everything he says here.
Much of the conservative media outlets are covering the President's press conference as if it were a strong showing for the President, but I have to disagree. While most of the things he said were relevant and did go some way to answering some of the questions swirling around the administration, his delivery was at time awkward and uneasy. Bush often seemed nervous and a bit disheveled, although at other times he seemed confident and resolute. Die hard bush lovers will say that it's what you say not how you say it, but he really didn't exude confidence to me. Of course, the only clip the mainstrem media is playing (I saw it 3 times on NBC this morning) is when Bush stumbled all over his answer about admitting mistakes. He essentially admitted that he was caught off guard and couldn't think of any on the spot. Not a good answer, even if it is truthful. The bottom line: Bush is horrible off the cuff, and he needs to do as little of this as possible. It's also clear that this election is now going to hinge on Iraq. The recent events in Iraq have torpedoed Bush's poll numbers more effectively than all of Kerry's attacks combined. Bush is betting his presidency on Iraq, and based on last night's performance, I'm not sure the American people are going to buy it. Let's hope things clear up over there soon, because I'm not sure Bush can sell this to middle America much longer.
Barring any last minute changes, Jonah Goldberg will be speaking here at Bowdoin College on the evening of Tuesday, May 11. Should be a fun evening to say the least.
You all better be there! And yes, we expect you to come from Belgium, Michael, and you from Colorado, Mark, and Mike if you are out there, you better be home by then!
Thanks to all of the hard work from Alex Linhart and Dan Schuberth at Bowdoin for helping to make this happen.
Oh, yeah, I meant to post this morning about a funny thing that I saw in the Corner regarding last night's press conference where President Bush said "Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld"...:
RUMSFELD AS SECSTATE [KJL]
An e-mailer asks:
Is it possible that GWB merely let slip something for his second term?????
I've been saying to friends that the line up I'd like is as follows:
Rumsfeld State (Can you imagine him taking the fire hose to that crowd?)Cheney Defense
Rice VP
You all better be there! And yes, we expect you to come from Belgium, Michael, and you from Colorado, Mark, and Mike if you are out there, you better be home by then!
Thanks to all of the hard work from Alex Linhart and Dan Schuberth at Bowdoin for helping to make this happen.
Oh, yeah, I meant to post this morning about a funny thing that I saw in the Corner regarding last night's press conference where President Bush said "Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of State Rumsfeld"...:
RUMSFELD AS SECSTATE [KJL]
An e-mailer asks:
Is it possible that GWB merely let slip something for his second term?????
I've been saying to friends that the line up I'd like is as follows:
Rumsfeld State (Can you imagine him taking the fire hose to that crowd?)Cheney Defense
Rice VP
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
Monday, April 12, 2004
I'm afraid I have to side with John Kerry on this one. Actually, I'm not siding with Kerry so much as I am siding against the members of the Catholic church pushing this silliness. So now they withhold sacraments based on one's political views? So much for forgiveness. I guess priests will now be like communion Nazis; "No Christ for you!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)