Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

Beemnseven · 10-01-2004, 09:42 AM

First let me say that I'm not a fan of either candidate. So you're getting an objective viewpoint here. I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik by the way. For those of you who have no idea who I'm talking about, you really need to familiarize yourselves with some of the other choices out there. It doesn't have to be one or the other, people. To me, the distinction between democrats and republicans is similar to the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

That being said, John Kerry is clearly more articulate than Bush, and a more seasoned debater. But I still don't know exactly where he stands on Saddam Hussein, or the war in Iraq. It did seem like Kerry had more to say, more points for Bush to defend, while Bush basically had one answer for everything, "It's hard work, we can't show weakness, blah, blah, blah."

Those long pauses that many of you have mentioned, the uncomfortable moments when Bush seems to struggle may actually appeal to more voters than you think. The fact is, most people talk that way. Unless your a politician, I think there are lots of people who realize that Bush sometimes sounds like they would sound in a similar situation. In those ways, Bush may actually identify with more people. By and large, unless you're a passionate Bush Hater, I think the American people are generally forgiving for Bush's lack of polished public speaking abilities.

I was anticipating a gaffe, but didn't see one. I thought for sure Bush would stumble ackwardly through the debate, but it never really happened. Neither candidate scored big, and neither really lost it completely.

I don't agree with the war in Iraq, and I was never convinced that Hussein presented the grave threat that many conservatives were apparently so scared about. But does John Kerry really offer a clear alternative? He's not giving us that much of a different option as to how to get out of the mess that's been created.

On the points that Bush lost interest in Osama bin Laden and recklessly went after Saddam Hussein, who never attacked us, Kerry clearly won that aspect, while Bush tip-toed, and weaseled his way out of it. If Kerry really drives that point home, then that could be an effective weapon that Bush obviously has no answer for.

I'm more interested in domestic affairs, and I can't wait for that debate. Last night's round was a draw in my mind.

10-01-2004, 09:42 AM	#12
Beemnseven Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Virginia Beach Age: 51 Posts: 5,311	First let me say that I'm not a fan of either candidate. So you're getting an objective viewpoint here. I'll be voting for Michael Badnarik by the way. For those of you who have no idea who I'm talking about, you really need to familiarize yourselves with some of the other choices out there. It doesn't have to be one or the other, people. To me, the distinction between democrats and republicans is similar to the difference between Coke and Pepsi. That being said, John Kerry is clearly more articulate than Bush, and a more seasoned debater. But I still don't know exactly where he stands on Saddam Hussein, or the war in Iraq. It did seem like Kerry had more to say, more points for Bush to defend, while Bush basically had one answer for everything, "It's hard work, we can't show weakness, blah, blah, blah." Those long pauses that many of you have mentioned, the uncomfortable moments when Bush seems to struggle may actually appeal to more voters than you think. The fact is, most people talk that way. Unless your a politician, I think there are lots of people who realize that Bush sometimes sounds like they would sound in a similar situation. In those ways, Bush may actually identify with more people. By and large, unless you're a passionate Bush Hater, I think the American people are generally forgiving for Bush's lack of polished public speaking abilities. I was anticipating a gaffe, but didn't see one. I thought for sure Bush would stumble ackwardly through the debate, but it never really happened. Neither candidate scored big, and neither really lost it completely. I don't agree with the war in Iraq, and I was never convinced that Hussein presented the grave threat that many conservatives were apparently so scared about. But does John Kerry really offer a clear alternative? He's not giving us that much of a different option as to how to get out of the mess that's been created. On the points that Bush lost interest in Osama bin Laden and recklessly went after Saddam Hussein, who never attacked us, Kerry clearly won that aspect, while Bush tip-toed, and weaseled his way out of it. If Kerry really drives that point home, then that could be an effective weapon that Bush obviously has no answer for. I'm more interested in domestic affairs, and I can't wait for that debate. Last night's round was a draw in my mind.