He [Cheyney]looks impressive only because he appears on a Tim Russert show or speaking in front of a favorable crowd.
I don't think Tim Russert is an easy interviewer. I read that Dean performed very badly on that show recently.
I don't watch Russert very often but he doesn't compare to O'Reilly and Hannity when it comes to grand inquisition style interviewing.
Bush does the same thing. Karl Rove is very cagey that way........he does not let them off his short leash. Anyone can look impressive when they have no opposition.
Maybe you are looking at it with too much of a partisan eye if you see them as the same.
I will be first to admit that Bush is not articulate. Cheyney on the other hand is extremely articulate, and can think quickly.
I agree that Cheney is articulate and quick thinking; I never said he wasn't. However, its been shown that last fall and winter, he misled people with half truths over Iraq. Either he doesn't do his homework or he misspoke by intent, but either way someone with some knowledge could make short work of him.
Bush has other skills that help him through press appearances, such as discipline, personality, like-ability, and now self-confidence, but his poor ability to articulate will always be a big hinderance to him.
Now I think you are being a bit partisan. I have not seen any of the qualities you express above with the possible exception of likability. I am unclear what's wrong with Bush when he speaks but it looks to me like he is suffering from an early onset of Alzheimer's. He seems to have a great deal of difficulty recalling what he wants to say. Its rather odd for someone who has been in public office as long as he has.......unless he does have early Alzheimer's.
I don't know how important those states are overall.
It may bee too early in the this cycle, but the political sites such as CNN or MSNBC have maps of the US and leanings of certain states. Some are strongly leaning Democrat, others strongly leaning GOP, others are tossups.
If the election were held today, I think Bush is a shoo in.
There are certain states that a Democrat must carry, or it is all over. California and New York are the top of the list, the other 2 Pacific states are very high on the list of must carry. So carrying these should be a given, and the candidate needs to have appeal in the tossup states. That's what either Leiberman or Gephard bring to the table. They may not excite the activists, but those are already in the bag. They need some appeal to the centrists, who are up for grabs.
I don't think most Dems would have trouble carryng NY and CA. Its big states like TX, OH and FLA where they would experience considerable difficulties.
I hope not......both turn me off.
I am not saying that they particularly excite me either, but I could see how they could appeal to centrists, blue color workers in case of Gephard, Jewish voters in case of Lieberman (which is a group that is slowly and surely moving from almost like 90% Dem support to GOP). Jewish voters are a big deal in the must carry states for Democrats (NY, NJ, CT, CA, MD, MA) and of course FL.
A lot has been made of the increase of Jews voting for Reps. but it will be interesting to see how deep that penetration is. The radical/religious right is still very scary to most Jews; and as the GOP gays found out recently, still very prominent in the GOP.
ted |
