This is the 100th post. Yay me :)
CatM has a rather scathing, and on the mark, review of Bush during the second debate.
The short of it is that Bush was long on rhetoric and short on fact. He was his usual smirking self. Nothing in his demeanor or remarks impressed me as “presidential.” Nothing he said demonstrated a superior grasp of the world or impressed me as anything significantly more intellectual than I might hear from all the parents at my son’s soccer meets. It was all average.
John Kerry may sometimes seem too rehearsed or exaggerate a few facts or even give an occasional answer that is too detailed, but John Kerry’s statements for the most part jive with the facts. They reflect a view that the world is not black or white, good or evil, and that he understands being president means making thoughtful decisions, not reactionary ones.
See, this is what happens when one political party decides that instead of trying to elect someone who is smart and intelligent, they’ll go with someone who has name recognition. Good job, RNC. Thanks a bunch.