Anyone watch the debate last night? I watched a little of it (but was playing a computer game at the same time, so you know where most of my attention was .

My opinion is that the debate was way too scripted. Someone said it wasn't even really a debate, more like a join press conference and I agree.

I listened to it on the radio, but don't think I could have withstood the visual impressions without getting a little nauseous. I should not have done it while driving because perhaps my comments could be taken by innocent bystanders for themselves. I suppose it was scripted because their timing was impeccable. I only heard President Bush say something like 'lemme finish now' once.

I still can't fathom how come Jeb Bush speaks English without a trace of a Southern or Southwestern accent and for some odd reason, George W. Bush does. I wonder if Jeb were President if his accent would change to reflect the more 'down home' style?

Because the debate was so heavily scripted, timed and prescribed I was just listening for aspects that I find intriguing.
So, I researched a little bit. I think the reason that George W. Bush is so popular is that, many don't want to be challenged, and they are comforted with his down home appearance. They find this reassuring. Kerry comes off as a colder intellectual type with Bush.

So I looked up Bush's brother to see why there's such a gap in their accents and the way they present themselves.
They both grew up in Texas but are the products of a long line of prominent establishment families. I guess everyone knows that by now. And what is more, they were both sent to school to Andover, which is a prep school. George W. Bush went to Yale though whereas his brother Jeb went to Texas for his post-secondary degree.
Though both brothers are proud of their Texas upbringing, Jeb Bush doesn't use that accent (he once said that going to Andover toughened him up as people judged you for where you come from). George W. Bush does use a down home bumbling way of speaking that is legendary and no one is making up these things, but, the brother chosen to run for President is the one who can disguise his intelligence the best and appear to be your brother-in-law, your next-door neighbor, your electrician or average Joe. Though they both benefited from privileges, financial and family, they differ in their way of using these.

I think I finally caught on to why George W. Bush is where he is, he doesn't challenge anyone intellectually because a lot of people must derive comfort from this.

I am not criticizing the use of a normal accent from the place you were raised or brought up or your family, far from it, but because I heard Jeb Bush speaking during the horrible hurricane events, I finally realized that, W. was more clever than I'd previously thought.

I guess I wouldn't want to play poker with him.

Edited to add, just happened to see the polls giving the edge to Kerry, but what I just said above means that, Bush is a master of appearing downhome, accessible to the common person, he has a religious method of speaking to people that people respond to, and no matter what, he kept this up.
What he did was whenever he faltered, the people who already sympathize with him, sympathized with him more, identified with him, had a 'don't kick a guy when he's down reaction' and basically made their decision then and there.

I think I looked on this as a theatre, but, how someone could act so well as to have people sympathize with him despite the rather obvious accusations that he couldn't deny. And, what is more, anyone who sympathizes with him, or feels that he represented the country right or wrong, or that a vote against him would be disloyal to the people serving him, will feel that Kerry is unfair and attacking him and by extension our troops.

It's pretty amazing that Bush can carry this off without a distinguished military career no matter where you stand on the debate over his records you can't see any medals, with reasonably overwhelming evidence that he overlooked quite a few things in charging into Iraq and basically acted for reasons based on his family's pride, that at home, seems to me like the folks without medical insurance coverage and other vital needs needed a little glance now and then instead of platitudes, and he still comes out as a victim with whom many people still sympathize.

Lest you think I've forgotten Clinton, I sure haven't. Clinton doesn't hide where he comes from, but, then again, he doesn't need to create this image of coming from the people, he does come from them and made strides to rise above poverty and go on to higher education.
Clinton never hides his intelligence nor in fact, his human frailties shall we say? In many ways they are politicians extraordinaire, no matter what hits them, it doesn't stick.

So from this type of viewpoint, I still think that Bush managed to pull through like a bandit because of his mastery of the 'hometown' speech technique. Even when he fumbles, lots of people sympathize with him, I found myself doing it and had to slap myself back awake.

Kerry, let's see. Well, Kerry's Kerry. He comes across as earnest, which is the least one can expect from a politician. He defends his support of the war because, he did this with the knowledge that he was given and at a time when, it appeared to be the right thing to do, to give unanimous support for the president because there was supposedly evidence that this was the right thing. Bush certainly didn't reject that at the time.

The reaction I had when Bush claimed that Kerry wouldn't be a good leader because he changed his mind for political expediency, so nanner nanner nanner, well, I must admit I laughed so hard I almost veered off the road.
Is there any politician alive who can say he didn't?

So, I don't hold much store in those polls because I fear that no matter what at the moment there is a large core of support for the fabricated 'hometown' guy who is clearly a master of this technique.
Clinton was too, don't get me wrong, but, this time, it seems important to hone in on all the information we have on how things went.

Kerry also brought up the fact that Iraq did the Americans' reputation damage in the world because of the way it was entered in to, this is one obvious thing that is almost impossible for some people to dream of because they've never been outside of the US and seen life from another viewpoint.
Nobody ever said, Kerry nor anyone else, that Sadaam didn't deserve taking out, but, they disagree on the methods and also, that it did America more harm than good in not just the Muslim community but elsewhere. I'm afraid few in the Bush camp can accept that fact.
I heard the term lead the world at one point, but I don't know if I was mistaken, that was scary too. Bush's reaction to this was that he knew these guys, and Kerry didn't. And for once, he managed to remember there were other countries serving with Americans and even remembered their names! Wasn't that amazing? Here is a man known for forgetting things like that, and he cited the disrespect for them all of a sudden. The guy's good, I'll give him credit for that one.
Have to see what happens. But I just wanted to analyze that from the standpoint of someone watching it with an eye to each candidate's world view.

What seems blatantly obvious to people with a hint of a world view, is totally hidden by Bush's performance for those who haven't thought about it from another country's viewpoint. They would find this performance a demonstration of how the other guy was kicking the country personified in Bush when it was down.

I listened to the debate on the radio as well. I thought both Kerry and Bush did very well, but what you comment on, Bruyere, about Bush's technique of coming across as a down home good ole' boy will, I think, help Bush in the race.

As for wondering about Jeb's and W's different accents, I just want to point out that my sister and I were both raised in the same New Mexico town; I have lived in NM all my life while she has lived in NM, Texas, and now Colorado. She has been exposed to the more 'southern' accent than I have, yet I'm the one that sounds more 'down home'. Some people pick up the accents while others don't.

Anyway, back to the debate. Since I listened on the radio, I didn't get to see the facial expressions or the "grimaces" that the media has claimed Bush had throughout the debate. I never thought the debates sounded scripted. Each candidate knew what the topics were before going in so each had plenty of time to rehearse. It was pretty much a given as to the types of questions that were going to be asked. You can only ask it in so many ways..."do you think going to war was wrong"? It was mentioned in the news that Kerry did three debate rehearsals with staffers the week before, so I don't think there were any surprise questions.

I thought that Bush faltered a couple of times at the beginning of his responses, but within a few words, he warmed to his answer and came on strong. Was this acting.. was this a ploy to get the Americans to feel sympathy for him? I didn't think so, but anything's possible.

I also feel that Bush's appearance and mannerisms are more comforting than Kerry's. Kerry does come across as being cold.

I watched the whole debate live and it was evident that Kerry had the upper hand.
Bush faltered a lot and then went back to his script about hard work,mixed massages,freedom and threats to America to reinforce his reputation as the strong arm candidate.Only two bushisms occurred,the mullahs became moolahs and he has a good relation with Vladamir.
Kerry pointed out many times that the war was against terrorism,and al-qaeda,and there was no link to 9/11 and saddam hussein.Also that the USA should have had support from the U.N,now the US are paying 90% of the bill and providing 90% of the soldiers.Also the US had lost a lot of respect in europe.
Will it make a difference to how people vote ,I doubt it as people have already made their decision on who to vote for

I guess what I'm trying to point out to people outside the States to whom it's patently obvious that Bush mismanaged the entry of the US into Iraq and blamed it on terrorism, is that, no matter what you think of Bush, people who sympathize with him and don't look further, see the signs of mumbling, faltering, lemme answer and the downhome accent as signs of regular folks and Kerry's cool calm appearance as cold and 'first of the class' eagerness to always be right.

If you look at it from that point of view, then many Americans will sympathize with this act.

Imagine how well the Bush presents himself so that despite his silver spoon upbringing as the descendent of a ruling class family from the East Coast establishment, related to about 14 presidents by family ties, someone who never served abroad and instead, served at home and didn't get overzealous at that, went to top knotch schools without any problem getting in despite mediocre performance in school, never had to pay for his own school, and then, he manages to convince people he's pro education, pro this or that...and the salt of the earth.

Honestly folks, if you're a normal person struggling to make a living and get your kids through school, are you really going to believe that Bush will do much to help you? I wouldn't. Has he ever really worked for his education? I doubt that sincerely. He racked up three DUIs while a younger man, which he doesn't hide but in fact, flaunts as having overcome obstacles. Lots of people admire him for that I guess.
So, I'm willing to admit that a candidate is human, but I just won't buy this hometown bit from someone like Bush.

One other thing, like it or not, Americans must think international, yet, which of those guys really appears to know how we as Americans appear to the world? Bush never gave the impression that he knew before nor even now. WHen he clamored, "I know those guys" to Kerry, I guess that those people who've never thought about how the war affected our relationship with the world think he does.

So unfortunately, what most people in other countries and in fact, probably half of the Americans I know see as the damage to our reputation as a country by declaring war on Iraq and not exhausting a few more channels, Bush totally ignores and denies. He never really understood this beforehand, nothing in his speech convinces me of the contrary, and you know what? Those who support Bush right or wrong, are probably comforted in that.

I would not conclude that everyone had decided. Many people are thinking that Bush is wrong, but, they feel forced to vote for him so as not to change in the middle of the mess he started up. You must admit, Kerry is courageous wanting to take it on...but, I think his decision to go to Vietnam despite massive unrest in the student population was part of his wish to do right.
But, when he saw the reality of war, he felt it was the wrong way to go about it.

Wishy washy? No, able to change.

From what is portayed in the media about Americans is that they don't like losers and Bush is a loser big time.He has a record of failed business ventures behind him yet people support him,it defies imagination.Iraq is just another in his long list of failures

I watched the entire debate live.
And for those of you that did not know, the questions were not presented to the candidates before hand. This gave quite a different scenario than simply delivering a speech written by, and edited by political experts.
What we saw was the candidates having to think as they answered the questions.
In my opinion, neither candidate did very well. I really think both could have done better at presenting their positions.

But you have to realize the real challenge for each candidate was to get through the debate without saying any thing fatal. And with that thought hanging in their minds, I would have to conclude both were successful.

Jax

For many who cannot bring themselves to vote for Bush, it gave them a reason to vote for Kerry instead of voting against Bush, or that's what's being said throughout the press.
As to Bush, I was reading the GOP's reactions and they obviously emphasizing the opponent's coldness and wishywashy answers or the way they perceived them. THey didn't focus on Bush's grimaces or his obvious discomposure shortly into the debate. Or they might accuse Kerry of being too easy to criticize Bush. The latter is laughable as isn't that what people are expecting?
I thought Kerry was pretty dignified in his behavior. But then again, the people who sympathize with Bush find that cold and smart alec first of class behavior.

Someone wrote in to the paper today and said that he thought Kerry displayed an ignorance of foreign affairs. I couldn't get over that one...but, as I said earlier and your comment on Americans not liking losers is not prevailing here, most people who sympathize with Bush, basically believe that even if he's made mistakes and this one's a doozy, they'll back him up because anything less is going against the troops who are there fighting for it.

I guess it was rehearsed (I wish they'd have given Bush a few more stock phrases to bandy about too, sorry, but he did rather repeat some of those) and depending on which side people sympathized with, they looked upon the person as more caring and sympathetic and the opponent as the opposite.

Looking at it from the outside, to many of us in the rest of the world, it seems odd that it should be a handicap to a candidate that he appear to be intelligent and cool headed. This was Al Gore's downfall too, wasn't it?

It looked so much weirder when I was living away from the US, than when I came back and realized that people actually thought this way.
That's their right, but, what I wish is that they could conceive for an instant that, our reputation elsewhere had truly suffered once war was declared and pursued in Iraq in particular. That was the time when, credibility was lost and yet, here, I know that many were afraid to speak up.

Al Gore was reproached for being wooden. I think Kerry's finally surpassed this reputation. He may be the 'first in the class' type, but, he just looks concerned, more reserved and perhaps, his appearance and behavior aren't out of sync with his background.
Bush's behaviour belies his patrician background and many Americans feel that's comforting.

My sister sent me a chapter from a book by George Lakoff, a cognitive scientist. I read it shortly after watching the debates the day after they happened. It was fascinating!! Linguistic science is fascinating!!

I have to admit that from my point of view as one who loves the scientific method, I've never understood how ANYone could say Kerry was "wishy washy" on the issues. It probably comes as no surprise to anyone that I won't be voting for Bush this election, but my defense of Kerry isn't purely political. He votes one way when presented with a certain set of criteria, and when those criteria change, he votes another. He didn't just vote opposing himself, he based his choices on available intelligence and learned from the mistakes already made. Frankly, the last thing I want out of a leader is someone who continues on the same course no matter what new evidence comes into play.

The one time I heard Bush say "Lemme finish now" or whatever, I had actually been verbally responding (including much angry stuttering) to what he'd been saying, and you can imagine my surprise when he actually TOLD ME to let him finish.....

Personally, though, I doubt very much this debate had any clear winner, because I doubt very much it changed ANY minds. Those who already were going to vote for Bush will vote for Bush now because Kerry was cold and didn't respond much to the accusations of wishy-washy-ness, while those who would have voted for Kerry anyway, will even more-so now because they're sick and tired of that wishy-washy accusation being Bush's only defense / attack.

But I will not vote for Bush even more now because I can't STAND it when people so badly mispronounce words. Tera is a plantation in Georgia. It is TERROR we must be worried about. I try not to judge people for their accents, and usually do a pretty good job, but I DO expect more from public speakers. Every time I actually hear Bush speak, rather than read quotes, etc., I cringe and think "This is the man who represents ME to the rest of the world, and he can't even pronounce Nuclear."

Maybe more of my US brethren are down-home folk, but you know, I'm not some big-city sophisticate. I live in a small city in a primarily rural farming state. I happen to have gotten a good public education, and so I KNOW the proper way to say things like terror and nuclear, and I assume that Bush did as well, so I must feel the same way about him as I do about intelligent women who dumb themselves down to appear more attractive to men. And that is: I hate them. They make me squirm with loathing. Really. Appealing to the lowest common demoninator is, I suppose, a good move politically, but dumbing down America is a really irresponsible thing for the President to do.

I could go off on a rant now about things like "They're called Comfort Proteins" (because of course you stupid stay-at-home moms who see this commercial at 2:00 in the afternoon wouldn't know what a simple protein was if it bit you in the rump, so we'll attach a snazzy trade-name to it in order for you to better understand), but I won't. I will, however, say the two things are connected, and it's a trend I dislike a great deal.

Yes, well lots of those things are happening in the speech.
I just don't find that any other president's accent or way of speaking has sounded so contrived. How could a guy go through a prep school, Yale and Harvard and not pick up a slightly better way of speaking to people unless it was contrived? I guess I might be able to accept that the son of a patrician American East Coast establishment family would say 'dudn't' when he speaks to us, but, it's hard!

That's normal for lots of people and I don't find that shocking but in the President of the United States who went to some of the most prestigious institutions in the country, it doesn't wash.

Clinton never hid his humble origins, perhaps he cashed in on them, yet, he achieved a lot more because he had to work his way up in education. I heard him speak on television recently and his accent sounds real and he speaks more intelligently and never patronizes people as far as I can hear. Good act I guess.

Bush makes many of us uncomfortable with that act though, Lothruin.

By the way, lest you think this is a partisan issue, Bush's fellow Republican, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger gets a lot of kidding about his accent, but, when he speaks, he sounds so much more sincere and intelligent. Though his accent is very pronounced, he never seems to be talking down to you. This is his natural accent from someone who didn't study much formally but who worked his way up the ladder.

Bush didn't work his way up the ladder, I guess that's it.

Re: Being Wishy Washy -

This was debated in one of my political science classes. What we decided was that wouldn't you rather have someone who changes their mind when faced with new information/intelligence than someone who would stay the same on the issue, no matter what revelations are brought up?

For example, say a politician votes 'no' on changing health regulations to help a disease called A because there's no medical proof disease A really, scientifically exists. 10 years later, the medical community has found out more about disease A, including how it's transmitted, treatments, etc. Would you rather the politician be consistent and vote 'no' for the same thing or have them be 'wishy washy' and change their vote to a yes?

I whole-heartedly concur with the majority of opinion expressed here. I watched the debate, and already knew I wouldn't be voting for Bush. The debate helped to reaffirm it.

Both candidates had their "stock phrases" that they used throughout the debate "Ten million registered voters in Afghanistan," "war is the wrong time in the wrong place etc." If I had to listen to that one more time I thought I would scream. It's amazing to think how a debate such as this one can/cannot influence a person. The way a person holds their body, if they sway, smirk, sneer can unduly affect the viewer. Watching Bush smirk and sneer his way through the debate, I kept waiting for his "frat boy hasn't grown up" to emerge and state "I'm kidding, I have no idea what I'm talking about."

I'm eagerly anticipating the VP debate on the 5th and the Town Forum setting on the 8th. I want to see how the debaters can work their magic on the undecided asking their questions.

The criteria for judging a candidate has become interesting. I for one don't feel that Kerry came across as wooden. He took notes, had his stock phrases "90% of casualities," but was lucid and well-thought out. If that makes a person cold or wooden then so be it.

I'm surprised that faith/religion is making a huge showing in this presidential race as well. I guess I'm only surprised because I personally don't believe in organized religions and hate when people use that as a pundit for votes or to garner favor. Battleground states such as Virginia are listed in polls on CNN.com as siding with Bush because he mentions God in his statements. Is this appropriate? Does this cross over into the division between church and state?

Good point on the last bit, because, if you look at it from a religious standpoint, Bush uses standard 'preacher' devices when he speaks: hand movements, facial expressions etc. He appears convinced of his being in the right morally and that, people who don't believe this are clearly deluded. When I see him, I see someone who is convinced that God is on his side in this moral battle, but a superior God whom few can aspire to know except a chosen few.
Whereas this is what offends some people and surprises many people outside the states, some find this it a sign of resolve and strength. Some people prefer a denomination that preaches like this I guess. Others find this almost offensive to bring up religion like this. Some people the message of moral superiority that Bush tries to project is really offensive though.

Kerry is Catholic, but, in case you haven't read anything about his lineage, he's not just a Boston Brahmin as his paternal grandfather was Jewish and immigrated to the States, picking a name at random therefore making Kerry appear like an Irish Catholic and fitting that image for some. His mother was however, from the Forbes family, and born in the French branch of expatriates.
I suppose once again, just mentioning Catholic, French and Jewish is enough to lose millions of voters in one sentence.
His wife is another count for him amongst those who want a blander, less flavorful person, and then many people find this an asset.
Kerry is fluent in French as he has a French branch of the family still and one of his cousins is a politician in France. Ooops there goes everyone who said 'liberty Fries'.

Well, if you read about their upbringing and what they've accomplished in their lives, and compare this, you'll see the one who has dealt with more situations and without falling back on family to fish him out of messes. I don't think Kerry grew up in a family that assumed that he'd continue a "dynasty" but instead that he would serve his country in a dignified manner. Bush was raised in a different way and in my opinion, probably always assumed that his family would be there for him and help him out. I think he tried to measure up to his father, it's patently visible to us when he speaks and the way he speaks of his father (I gasped when I heard Kerry mention how President Bush had not pursued the earlier war...citing George W. Bush's father, though he did this in a dignified way) with reverence, you get the impression that he truly emulates his father but doesn't quite come close enough.

Wishy washy, I concur with the description of the doctors. You take two little traction cars, pull back on them, then let them go, they run into an obstacle, sit there spinning their wheels and are stuck. Wouldn't you rather have a little car that could go around an obstacle or go over it? I would.

one thing to note with interest as mike moore ,former prime minister of New Zealand observed.
Over 60%of Americans attend church once or twice a week whereas in Europe the figure is 10%.
Research by Moore shows that 48% of Americans believe that the US has special protection from God,58% believe that US strength and success are based on religious faith and 60% say that faith is involved with every aspect of their lives.
These figures are not surprising considering the impact the founding fathers had on the country.

Well, there are only 2 of us who are "maybe" George Bush supporters; several are not American citizens, but world opinion counts: "If the French like Kerry, I'm voting for Bush."
Neither candidate is a statesman in the classic sense of the word, but if my American butt is in jeopardy give me George W.

I find nothing wrong with the way President Bush holds his father in high esteem and has family there for him. I find nothing wrong with Pres. Bush having a strong religious faith. I also will be proud to stand up and say that I will be voting for President Bush four weeks from today.

I have respect for John Kerry running for the office of President. It has to be a strong man to want to take on the responsibilities of the greatest office in the land. But I'm not going to switch horses in the middle of the stream. I have faith in Pres. Bush to finish what was started. Right or wrong, that's my vote.

For me, I really don't care if someone's religious or not. But when that person starts making policies because of their religion, that's when I do have a problem. If voting a certain way goes against your religious beliefs, then you abstain. I think I posted a note in here about the Muslim woman running to be an MP in Canada. When asked how she would vote on something like abortion, she said that because her religion forbids it, she couldn't vote for it, but wouldn't vote against it because it's her religion, not everyone else's religion. I like that idea.

As for switching horses in midstream, that seems to be what the majority of voters do. That's why open seats are more hotly contested than when there's an incumbant. But I won't be voting for Bush just because I would really rather not Bush be allowed to continue on his path. Yes, I think he'd continue on his path, but to me, I think Kerry's foreign policy ideas are better and more sound, in addition to the fact that I've never liked Bush abandoning the environment and how the job market is right now.

Does anyone watch "The Daily Show" on COmedy Central? I think they actually did a good job of covering some of the debate issues. Jon Stewart seems to poke fun at both candidates equally and gives equal time to both sides of the issues.

He interviewed the man in charge of Bush's campaign in the southeast and I have to admit, that campaign manager did a GREAT job. Jon Stewart really put him on the spot from beginning to end of the interview and the campaign manager never flinched. He should get a raise!

I adore Jon Stewart ladymacb. I actually get more out of his coverage as opposed to mainstream news.

On Monday evening they re-aired the debate coverage and I was able to catch up. They interviewed Wesley Clark, Former Mayor Guiliani and even had a segment about undecided voters that had me hysterical, especially since it was filmed here in Philadelphia.

I like how Jon Stewart interviews both sides, and while he does make the sardonic comment now and then, he is interested in the issues is well-read and it comes across.

If you skim the websites and blogs for the general pulse after the debates, it's pretty clear that those who support Bush thought he was being attacked unfairly and kicked when he was down and that Kerry appeared cold, unclear, wishy washy etc...and those who supported Kerry thought the contrary. Someone summed it up nicely, a Rorsach test, you see in the inkblot what you want to see. They have a point. But from a formal viewpoint, of which candidate truly debates more skillfully, Kerry is clearly more accomplished at that sort of debate. (if you applied debating society rules that schools use and these are probably more of an art than a science) And yet again, people who support Bush find this a con instead of a pro. Time and time again, you hear people echo the sentiment that Bush isn't a slick talker etc, but he's this or that. Well, I find that he is indeed a slick talker, because he's speaking in a way that belies his position as the leader of the country, who has been educated in some of the top knotch American schools and who is not one of the "people" and never has been. Once again, I guess Bush supporters don't have a problem with that. The more you point out the obvious contradiction in terms of a guy who's never really had to fight for what he has, the more people say they have no trouble with that. Ok, I see what you might mean.

Do they have a problem with the confrontation with him over his sending the US into Iraq? I guess not. I read over a few sites, and those who support him just don't care about that, or accuse others of trumping up the charges against him. The more criticism is launched his way, the more people who support him find it unfair. Do Bush supporters have any trouble with the damage to the credibility of the US abroad that going into Iraq before exhausting a few more possibilities did? No, again and again, I see the Bush, right or wrong reasoning. Ok, I guess I can see your point, no sense in tearing out our hair on that. Kerry brought that up, and, Bush supporters find that under the belt I guess. It's what many many people think of us though now and from the start.

I have nothing whatsoever in someone holding their family in high esteem, but when you make a decision that is highly influenced by your family background, and override the reports to the contrary, common sense, and throw caution to the wind, you make others suffer the consequences of your actions.
No one is mourning Sadaam's loss really, but they just cannot believe that it was directly linked to terrorism and that Sadaam was sitting there giving orders. Even if they did think it, then they probably would think a few more moves ahead, and would this action actually solve or aggravate the problem? When you play chess, you do it that way, several moves ahead, because if you don't, you risk checkmate.
Once again, lots of Americans have never lived with terrorism as an everyday occurence for political reasons, they just have some homegrown varieties who go berzerk and shoot people when something snaps. So, it's understandable that they don't know that waging a war on terrorists involves careful cooperation between authorities to catch the real perpetrators. As I've lived abroad, I've experienced the alerts, the parking restrictions in front of schools and public buildings, the train station being closed down for a bombing, and basically, constant reminders. I suppose that this must be why many Americans believe that going in and taking out a figure who's clearly involved in something bad if not terrorism is justified, but not by exaggerating the facts and overriding your God given intelligence because of a failure of your family member. They can't accept that the way this was done exacerbated the problem. So it's fine if a man respects his father, but as Kerry pointed out, even Bush senior didn't go further. Bush Sr might have been a better chess player though, I think so.

Kerry is speaking the truth when he says that this has damaged the credibility of the States more than helped it in this war against terrorism. Whereas the allies were with the US in Aghanistan, Iraq tested them and those who went, went begrudgingly because of the way it was entered into. Once the war began, the oppononents and friends of the States doubted the credibility.
Bush once again comes through the mess shining, I give him credit.


So, Bush must be more clever than some people think.



A lot of people commented on the way George W. Bush expressed himself though. It's really interesting from that viewpoint. Those people who prefer a more dignified type of speaker who doesn't hide his intelligence by speaking 'downhome' despite the educational and family background he comes from, well, they certainly couldn't accept the performance of Bush.

Now the faith issue is important to many of us, because, it is a big factor in the job he performs. I don't say that a candidate must hide his faith, of course not, but, if it governs his every move and he feels justified in actions by this faith, then I worry. If any action a person chooss is justified by the 'God is on our side' reasoning, then many of us are worried. There are quite a few different versions of religious belief in America last time I checked and I probably have twenty denominations of Christian churches alone in my town alone, not to mention a Buddhist temple, a synagogue and a few others, so if that's going to influence your decisions as a leader, it's important to voters which brand of religion the person is adhering to. Will his religious affiliation override his decision making abilities? Will his affiliation with religious groups affect his decision-making?
I would think that would be important to people. It will have an impact on you whether you like it or not. For some people it's a plus, for others it is a minus.

I think that many prefer the more reserved religious affiliation.

I have also seen many people write that they have trouble believing Bush will ever do anything for the real problems people face as he's never really dealt with problems on his own in his real life. I would be surprised if he'd had to take out student loans or stoke a coal furnace to get through school. I bet he didn't have to worry unduly about getting in to Yale despite his underachievement in school because of his family background.
I bet his DUIs were taken care of without too much trouble.
I guess his military service, no matter where you stand, was influenced by his father as well because he even asked for a leave to take care of the campaign which is well documented. He didn't have to serve overseas, and didn't exactly become overzealous in serving. I can accept the 'performed military service and got honorable discharge' bit without looking further, but, you cannot say that his father's position made no difference to that career. Once again, people have no problem with that if they support Bush. They'd rather look at Kerry who volunteered for his service, for going overseas and then what he did after that experience.

I wonder how Bush could comprehend people's health insurance problems when, it's all around us. I just went without for seven months and it's hellish. Has the guy ever had to fill out the forms, hassle with insurance providers for every little thing, has he ever gone without like many of us? Has he ever had to think over medical care for his children or his elderly relatives because of lack of funding?

We're not talking spongers on the system as people seem to be implying but, people with real needs and who lose their homes for medical bills. Kerry is brave for wanting to take on the mess, and believe it or not, I don't feel that he's in this for wanting to rule the world or something. He looks like he can deal with it in a dignified manner, with intelligence, and perhaps without as much reliance on family background that unfortunately has overridden good sense.

One thing that does popup at the moment on the blogs and the websites is the not wanting to switch in the middle, but is this because, it's such a mess that people would rather let Bush deal with it because he got us into it? Or is it because people feel that someone new couldn't deal with the mess properly?

I guess the other thing I'm seeing is people saying Bush would protect us from terrorism more than Kerry. Well, sure, since some of these things were exacerbated by him, maybe he would. But wouldn't getting back some credibility be a bit more effective internationally than just relying on Bush's measures? The intelligence agencies were so woefully behind to start with that, I wonder if it's possible for him to coordinate them now.
We need an international president, like it or not, as well as a national figure.
There is no way that Bush will ever get back his credibility abroad, and like it or not, it's extremely important to the 'war on terrorism' he's touting.

I think the 'not changing horses in midstream' thing is summed up nicely by a quote I heard on "The West Wing": "The devil you know beats the devil you don't." So someone would rather vote for a known that they don't like than for this unknown quantity that could make it better, but could also make it worse. You know what the current president is doing, so you'd rather wait it out with him than take the risk of getting someone who'd be worse.