Well, there is a difference between offering balance and accepting Gore, flaws and all, and making your case against Bush. The question is, why the supposition of incapacity? I suppose it is possible that I and about half the voters are dopes, and do not realize what a joke Bush is, but I doubt it. If the question is put "Who do you think is more qualified?", and you answer Gore, I would disagree, but find it an understandable position. After all, the man has a heftier resume, for example. But you and E, and others, go further and state categorically that Bush is unqualified. That is what beats me.
E would say that it is a matter of ideological blinders. However, a third to a half of Bush voters had to have been moderates, there are not enough conservatives to bring the vote to 48+%. Not only that, but poll after poll showed that roughly 2/3rds of the electorate thought either man would be qualified. So, I have to ask myself why the glaring discrepancy in the evaluation of Bush. Maybe it is your superior insight. I doubt it.......... |
