Ok, those are opinions, and I respect the right to have opinions, the more thoughtful the better.
Yes, Gore screwed up the debate, in fact the entire campaign, but I'd say in demeanor rather than substance. Gore shouldn't run again, unless he gets serious regrooving.
As far as Bush not having news conferences, but having the time to campaign endlessly... I don't buy it. That's inexcusable anytime, not to mention in times of crisis. It is a continuation of his inability to meet with Americans on 9/11, and raises the suspicion to many, many Americans that he's not the author of his beliefs and declarations. That's important, because the next question is the obvious one. And Cheney holds no such conferences either. Only Rummie, who talks endlessly and entertainingly on military details, not the all-important policy issues.
As far as Bush's judgement, etc., there are several issues here:
1) The appearance. In some ways it's ok to have a pres who is less than capable mentally, if he appears to be consistent and can deliver a rousing speech when needed, even if the audience is salted with paid cheerleaders, as long as the media goes along with the ruse, as John King (CNN senior WH correspondent) said on television the other night (basically he said on the Daily Show on June 9th, "everyone thinks he's an idiot, and we're amazed everyone is going along with it!")
2) The actuality. It's dangerous to the Republic to have a titular head of state who is fed scripts by unaccountables in the back rooms. It's also dangerous to have a large segment of the population believe someone else is in charge. It undermines confidence in the government.
3) World conflict. That's another issue - Nixon and Reagan got points for being "unstable" and "highly aggressive". I suppose we can imagine policymakers thinking by using a bellicose president who is "titular", others in the world can be intimidated. Maybe so. But temporary success if it comes masks future troubles brewing not just from bellicosity, from also the "secret team" claims that are believed by virtually all our enemies and most of our allies. That undermines belief in our Republic, which we had hoped would be an example for the world.
Agreed, I am a skeptic, and perhaps am a bit harsh to your commentary. It's really not personal criticism, except when you sink to use of epithets and run the other direction rather than at least attempting objective discussion of the facts, perhaps because you have convinced yourself I am not, or cannot, objectively discuss facts. Believe me, I can, and attempt to.
Finally, today is a busy one, so I'll have to come back to this |
