We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I'll vote for the guy. He is a sane and multi-talented heavyweight for whom politics has been only one of many interests and pursuits. Latest, via Instapundit.
And if he recants, and humbly apologizes for his McCain-Feingold vote, I might do more than just vote for him. There is no valid defence for supporting McCain-Feingold, which I believe is both un-American and unconstitutional. (We like Rudy, and others, too, but Fred should be in the mix. Lots of good candidates. As long as you can express conservative principles - or anything - better than our current Pres, we'll like ya.)
I know the pres has impressed few folks--but ya gotta give him 2 out of 3. A conservative prez has the three big issues--war & peace, economy, and gov't spending. First two at least, he's been i think very good, considering the oppo (both Democrat & terrorist).
I think you're right Buddy, 2 out of 3. On the third I'd add an oppo, his party in the legislature.
But damn, how I wish he were an orator. I mean he's OK, does the best he can, but yet, we need ( I would like too see) someone who can stir with words. That may seem facile, but its not. Mere words have always moved armies and their supporters.
Going on just the emotional, I'd vote for Fred for sure, as long as he remembers his four foot hickory stick that he wielded as an actor. There must be some transference between that world and this one. Then again maybe not.
As far as Bush's speaking abilities, he sounds GREAT to my ears. But i have--everyone around here has--the same sound, the same rhythm & tone, the same so-called "Texas lateral extension" (aka hick-ass accent).
In fact, everyone around here walks and stands and gestures the same way as he does.
So we have a hard time understanding the pervasive national/world disappointment with his communication skills.
However, it does advance a theory of mine, that someone who looks/sounds/acts rustic just won't be taken seriously no matter what anymore, in the brave new image-flooded world. Most of our presidents would not get elected today, tho many of our male models & actors would.
But anyway, so Bush attracts this ancient cellular reaction, the disdain and contempt for the faker, the usurper, or the pretender.
Experiment--after listening to one his speeches, go to the white house site and read it--and see if it is totally different than what your eyes and ears just told you. Betcha it is.
And I'm no PC accent-angel--Hillary's midwest whatever the hell it is grates on my eardrums like catclaws on a blackboard.
Nah, I just don't buy it. The rustic and/or Texan. I grew up and was eloquent in HAA. But, and sorry for the personal, I realized at a young age that it was detrimental in being accepted beyond a certain point. Accent's do make a difference. I'm not saying its right, just real world as I've seen it. Parochial, maybe. Or some deeper sense of America that is hesitant in accepting that which seems regional. OTOH, JFK had a pretty solid accent. But was able to allay fears or talk folks into accepting them. Am I talking myself into circles here? I don't know.
All I know is what I hear Buddy. Great to you may seem mediocre too me. Is is not that he doesn't say the words needing saying, its some other undefinable lack, I'm short for words here, that leaves me unfulfilled. Gravitas, essence, sincerity, something undefinable by me in my ignorance of words. Maybe in the end, just too matter of fact.
It's in the gravitas--a level deeper than the one i was waxing on about.
Likely has to do with the accumulated debris of BDS, and functions via the sense that, a really good leader would've found a way to finesse it (the BDS, i mean).
But if i may infinitely regress the logic, it is also possible that the BDS has always been beyond his or anyone else's control, and that this is why it has been so effective in diminishing his stature.
But then, yes, it would not have been so, had only he been more this, or that, or less that, or this.
It breaks my heart. What our president does well is short sentences. What he does not do well is choose speec writers. You can do short sentences (which may be required because of the twant, or the nasal congestion, or whatever), what the writers are supposed to be doing is crafting each sentence as they fall into sequence, such that the audience becomes informed of the argument supporting the statement/claim. He has never had writers to succintly spell out why, how many in such a way that the information is made real and colorful and palbable to the audience.