Now, I think it’s wrong to assume President Bush is an idiot. I mean, there’s some reason, perhaps invisible to those of us who never get to meet him or see him in action behind the scenes, that he got where he is. I mean, beyond the privileged background and unwavering support of partisan zealots and big corporate interests. But tonight’s “debate,” which is about halfway over as I write, is a great example of why so many people, me included, keep concluding he’s a nitwit. Never mind the baseless conclusions he continues to argue for on Iraq and terrorism and security. The phrase in the post title is just one example of the constant tangle he found himself in when contending with basic spoken English and logical argument during his appearance with Kerry. He seems so ill at ease, so hesitant and uncertain about how to phrase his responses, so dependent on falling back on the charge that Kerry has been inconsistent in his positions. I’d say Kerry got the better of him — just spoke more clearly, thought well on his feet, didn’t lose himself (much) in his dangerous, tortuous prolixity.
Of course, the way things are today spinwise and swing voter-wise, no one will really win this debate when it’s all over.
2 Replies to “‘Not What Commander in Chiefs Does’”
Hey Dan, Well I didn’t watch the debate, because I know how I will vote and I can’t, won’t subject myself to the indignity of looking at the little gobshite, unless of course he steps in shite, but that is like waiting for lightining to strike.
What I like hearing are the Bush acolytes saying he did well because people had low expectations for him as a debater (David Broder), going up against a skilled debater. Sorry, the guy’s the president. If he can’t articulate his views well, he should beat it…the gobshite.
PS: Richard Holbrooke on Charlie Rose tonight is right on. He lays out the story quite well. Worth a look. Later mate.