posted
I think the debate will look at lot like this:
quote: In his first televised debate, in which Bush challenged the well-spoken Richards, the novice was cool as a creek while dodging her attacks on his inexperience. But his strongest moment may have come when he was asked about casino gambling.
"I'm opposed to casino gambling," he answered. And shut up.
Richards spoke next. She said she, too, was against casinos, but then went on at length to explain all the exigencies of law and policy that might someday force her to change her mind. When she finally finished, the moderators asked Bush if he wanted to expand his answer.
Flashing his "what a blowhard" look, Bush declined. "I oppose casino gambling," he repeated.
I predict Bush will win the first two debates. Most voters are not interested in contingencies and complex policy solutions. They want a straight talker who seems likable and resolute.
Kerry will come on strong at the final debate. By the third act, Bush will no longer be able to dodge Kerry's attacks with simple Bushisms. Even if Kerry edge out a victory in the third debate, it will probably be too little too late.
I think someone here jokingly referred to the hurricanes in Florida as a conspiracy to reelect the president. There is some truth to that. Providing federal relief to a devastated state always make the incumbent look presidential. Sure, both candidates can tour Florida, but while Bush can say things like "I'm releasing billions of dollars in federal aid" what the heck can Kerry offer? Saving hamsters from the flood?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerry should have an advantage in all the debates, unless Bush can somehow keep the topic entirely off his record for the past four years.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Bush could actually answer a question straight... Most of the time when I hear him talk in conferences he doesn't... He repeats the same statements.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get the point, but I can't conceive of how Bush could possibly have any advantage in a debate with Kerry, unless you've already made up your mind to vote for him. You could say it's my own biases showing, but aside from the record of the last four years, which, shockingly, some think is debatable, he is just not a good speaker. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
What can I say to that? I don't think it's arrogant. I think it just reflects my belief that this election is as easy a choice as we've ever been presented with. Intellectually, I can grasp that some disagree, or that some see it as clear, but in a different direction. But is it arrogant of me to admit to my belief that one candidate is clearly superior? That's all I'm really saying. Don't we all believe in some things that seem intuitively obvious to us, which some people manage to disagree with? Is it arrogant to hold the belief that someone is clearly wrong, or is it merely arrogant to admit to it?
Dag, I respect you despite your apparent belief that Bush is the better choice. I'm sure that you must think I'm flat out wrong in some of my beliefs, and be bewildered by my persistence in such beliefs. I would not be offended if you said you couldn't understand how I could come to my conclusions, as long as you didn't say I was an idiot for feeling this way.
I don't think I have said anything insulting, simply that the pro-Bush mindset is alien to me at this time.
I apologize for the impact of my words on you, though I am not convinced I said anything wrong.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not the thinking that your right that seems arrogant, nor even the associated belief that others are wrong. It's the fact that you seem surprised by it. You're a smart guy. I know you're exposed to differing views that are presented fairly intelligently.
Maybe I read too much into the word "shockingly." The numbers thing was to point out that you are surprised by a very common behavior, which should make it less surprising.
And arrogant was too strong a word for me to use. Sorry about that. Certainly, I wasn't insulted or offended by your posts.
posted
My shock comes from how out of step I feel with everybody else at this point; it's the very fact that close to half of the people seem to disagree with me that gives rise to it. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Kerry is going to have problems for the same reason listed at the top of this thread. He can't seem to answer questions simply, without modifiers.
And what will come across from Bush is the same thing that has come across the last four years. He utterly believes in his decisions and direction, and is charmingly surprised that anyone would question them when the advantages are so (to him) obvious. People respond to that.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Erm, I like Bush, I think he was a pretty good president... As such, I think I may have a few baises, but...
The way I have seen this campaining for quite some time is not Republican Vs. Democratic It's more like "I say this." Vs. "I take the opposite of whatever he says."
Bush may not be that great in a debate, but he is just persuasive. He just gives me the proud "I am an american" feeling.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Persuasive? Have you actually listened to him, not in a speech, but in a conference on television being asked questions coldly? The qay he stumbles over his words and doesn't even answer the question correctly? Stumbling over your words is one thing, many people do it all the time... But, with him... it's as if he lacks substance. He uses the simplest statements dripping with patriotism and emptiness...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He makes you feel good by, more or less, lying to you. He says we are always good when we are not, that our enemies are evil when they are not, that we are suceeding when we are not, that our actions are justified when they are not, and so on and so forth.
This is far easier to do in a prewritten speech than in a debate. In a debate you will have to answer to the facts.
This is why Bush will be at a serious disadvantage.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is not some high school Lincoln-Douglas debate where your judge is a nerdy college student with a subscription to the Economist who knows the GDP of South Africa.
Televised debates is about being likable. And regardless of what you think of Bush's policies, you have to admit that man comes across as a guy you would like to have a beer with.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably not a beer - Bush hasn't used the "A" word, but he was pretty loutish when he was drinking and reportedly hasn't drunk alcohol in many years.
(BTW, that isn't meant to be either a "plus" or a "minus" for Bush - just something that is pretty much standard background knowledge on Bush.)
I understand that Bush comes across as charming to at least half the population, but the "why" of it escapes me. Just because I don't get it, though, doesn't mean I should discount it. I try to understand what it is that others see that I don't.
Meeting with limited success so far, but it may come. I didn't get what other saw in Reagan either at the time - I do think I understand it now. Doesn't make me agree with Reagan's policies any more now than I did then, though. Whatever is working for Bush, though, isn't much like what Reagan had working for him. Bush is a lot more divisive, and talks less with people from both parties than the old gipper.
Edit to add: Decided long ago that Kerry is definitely the guy I'd rather have sitting next to me on a plane - he'd be more likely to leave me in peace with my book than Bush.
posted
I think the only thing Bush would have going for him in a debate is he looks like the kind of guy you could trust. Kerry just looks like a typical politician liar while Bush looks more like an simple, average man. Of course looks shouldn't be important in a Presidential race but that doesn't mean it isn't.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jaime, is it possible you are projecting that? Because I'm not sure how you could objectively come to the conclusion that Kerry "looks" dishonest while Bush looks trustworthy.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I hear Bush speak, he always sounds like a normal human being, instead of a polished politician . It's probably affected, but it makes me want to trust him more than if he sounded all slick like most people we see on TV.
On a side note, bev and I were watching the first season of Alias, and a new character shows up. Beverly said that we weren't supposed to like the guy because he had a speeach impediment, and he wasn't good looking enough. Sure enough, it turns out that we weren't supposed to like him. He wasn't pretty enough to be a good guy.
It's probably the contrarian in me, but the fact that Bush hasn't lost (I'm sure he hasn't lost it on purpose) the accent that so many people consider uncouth and ignorant really endears him to me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the only thing Bush would have going for him in a debate is he looks like the kind of guy you could trust.
I'm just wondering if you have to already like Bush or dislike Kerry to come to that conclusion. You did state it as pretty much a given.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well no, since he already served one term as President first impressions are gone but when he speaks I just think he looks and sounds more like the average, typical American instead of a politician who wants to be the President of the United States of America. That could be a good thing or bad thing. Would you rather have a proffesional man who you look up to as your leader or a guy who represents you as the normal American?
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, your position seems to indicate some assumptions. I don't think Bush represents me at all. I think you are generalizing your own impression, but I don't think it's as universal as you think.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well no, since he already served one term as President first impressions are gone . . .
I don't get the significance of this.
quote: I just think he looks and sounds more like the average, typical American instead of a politician who wants to be the President of the United States of America.
It's your dichotomy that seems false to me. Kerry doesn't sound like a politician, just like an intelligent, educated man with a decent vocabulary.
(Of course, now that will come across as a slam on Bush, and this will turn into a Kerry versus Bush thing. What can I do? But I'm just pointing out that this begs the question of whether or not Kerry in fact does not sound like a typical American. If you are blue class, or Southern, then you will say he does not. But that hardly is the extent of American diversity. I certainly feel that Kerry is more like me than Bush is.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess, I just thought the majority of people would be able to relate more to a simple man who doesn't use fancy words. I see what you mean, though.
posted
What I meant was that regardless of how he looks or sounds we already pretty much know who he is since we've had him for four years as our president.
That didn't sound like a slam on Bush but it sounded like your opinion, which is the opposite of mine.
Posts: 853 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want a President who sounds like an average American. I want a President who sounds like the best of us, who sets a bar as that to which we should aspire.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:but the fact that Bush hasn't lost (I'm sure he hasn't lost it on purpose) the accent that so many people consider uncouth and ignorant really endears him to me.
What accent....the Conneticut one?
After all, that is where he was actually raised, and spent most of his time growing up, in NE...not Texas.
He did'nt have the "enderaing accent" until he entered public life.
Ever notice the rest of his familiy doesn't have the accent?
posted
Bush will "win" the debates because the unbiased commentators will be too busy exclaiming over how much he's improved with his public speaking ability to condemn him except with trivial whines that diehard Bush voters are going to ignore anyway. Kerry has no such (what seems to be a) blindly loyal following, and will be shot down for his presentation, to say nothing of possible mistakes. And since I'd guess most voters would expect "mistakes" from Bush to be repeated dogmatically, there's really nothing to call him on but that they're, at best ,wrong -- and we're already expecting that from Kerry.
The Democratic ticket is fighting uphill. Ironic that this is, as Jose said, the easiest choice we've had in a long time.
Not that it matters. I think I'll start collecting bets -- maybe put down $200 on Bush "winning" the election, one way or another. Anyone want to take me up on it?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
After all, that is where he was actually raised, and spent most of his time growing up, in NE...not Texas.
He did'nt have the "enderaing accent" until he entered public life.
Ever notice the rest of his familiy doesn't have the accent? [Roll Eyes]
Actually, I did notice that. I guess I miss-spoke. I should have said that he purposely acquired the accent (which is not strong, but noticable), isntead of that he purposely has not lost it.
posted
So, there are lots of people (apparently) who believe that Bush comes across as an "Average American," a "guy like me," etc.
I personally find him to be a very bad public speaker, who seems startled when questions veer from his planned answers (that's why the whole "friendly audience" thing bugs the snot out of me). Regardless of how good he makes people feel, I don't think it's debatable that he uses a folksy persona as an attempt to push this "average guy" view. He doesn't use "fancy words" and makes plenty of grammatical (and, occasionally, factual) errors.
So, question: is the "Average American" perception part of the more general trend toward anti-intellectualism that seems to be SO prevalent in rhetoric of all kinds these days?
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, in all fairness and in the interest of bi-partismanship, I have recently taken the time to listen to some of Kerry's speeches (to see exactly where he stands on the issues).
Now -- all political agendas and issues aside for the moment -- how in the world do you guys stand listening to Kerry?
I mean his voice. While I agree that Bush isn't exactly a Charismatic speaker, and has made flubs, and least it doesn't bother me to listen to him. (although some say he sounds like Donald Duck). But Kerry! If he is president, I don't think I can religiously watch the State of Union address as I always have in the past, and stay awake!
His voice just kind of drones on me. It isn't irritating -- it is just lifeless. I can't read any emotion into it.
If he talks that way in the debates, it will ruin him.
posted
Actually, Farmgirl, I haven't listened to a State of the Union since Bush became president for the same reason you can't listen to Kerry--I can't STAND to hear him talk! The folksy accent bugs me because it seems affected to me, and the flubs drive me crazy, because to me, it seems like an indicator that he hasn't actually thought about what he's saying. His voice drives me insane! I've turned on the radio or the TV with the express intention of listening to one of his speeches, but had to turn it off for that reason.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, I totally sympathize with you!
Seriously, I'd rather have a less emotional presentation of something intelligent than an emotional presentation of something that boils my blood.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So, there are lots of people (apparently) who believe that Bush comes across as an "Average American," a "guy like me," etc.
I personally find him to be a very bad public speaker,
To tell you the truth, the fact that he is not a great public speaker is part of what makes him come across as a normal human.
If you look at most people we see on TV, movies, etc., most of them have two things in common -- they are really, really good looking (Zoolander quote), and they are all very good speakers.
When was the last time you saw somebody with a hair lip or cleft pallate or on TV or movies? If you think of one, it probably threw you for surprise, didn't it? When was the last time you saw a character with a speech impediment that wasn't a bad guy nor comic relief?
My point is that we are told the message over and over that "normal" people are pretty and well-spoken.
But we all know that's not the case. Many times I have noticed a pretty girl and then came to the realization that if she were an actress, she would be relegated (strongbad vocabulary) to play either the ugly chick or the fat chick.
Normal people aren't as beautiful or well-spoken as the characters we see in fiction. We all know this.
Politicians get away with not having to be pretty, but almost universally, they are all pretty smooth talkers. That's understandable -- words are their profession, just like words are part of the profession of actors.
This is why Bush sounds more like a normal guy than a politician. Heis not well-spoken like practically all other politicians.
This is not a good thing, nor do I think it's a bad thing. I'm just trying to explain why some of us, on a purely emotional level, automatically percieve him as more like us.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, that makes a certain amount of sense to me. I can't say that I agree with it as a voting criteria; like Irami said,
quote: I don't want a President who sounds like an average American. I want a President who sounds like the best of us, who sets a bar as that to which we should aspire.
Still, I'm curious about the perception of intelligent people that he is "like them." All of the intelligent people I know are quite well-spoken (regardless of their political leanings). So, when intelligent people have a gut reaction against good public speaking, I'm just curious as to why.
Maybe it isn't so much that he's an "average guy," as that he's not a typically well-spoken politician. Thus, his attraction is more for what he isn't than what he is. Again, I tend to a) question this as a criteria for voting, and b) wonder if it's part of a more general trend of anti-intellectualism.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. It would be interesting to see opinions on Bush and Kerry’s “more like me” appeal broken down by whether or not the poll-ee does any public speaking, professionally or for volunteer organizations. Or was in debate team, mock trial, and/or drama club in school.
I read somewhere that public speaking is the number one fear among American adults. It even ranked higher than fear of death. So are those of us who don’t share that particular fear less likely to find poor public speaking an endearing trait in others?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be interesting, dkw. Although I have quite a bit of experience as a public speaker -- and as a instructor -- and have never been afraid of speaking before a crowd and was a member of Toastmistress for while...
Perhaps the reason Bush's voice doesn't bother me like it does some of the others is that we are from the same region? I mean - I'm from Kansas and he's from Texas -- everyone in the Plains often have the same "folksy" way of talking -- so perhaps that is why it sounds more normal to me?
posted
But I love southern accents. My objections to the way he speaks are not based on his alleged southern accent. I lived in the south, I've had southern teachers that I respected very highly; that accent has positive connotations for me. :dontno:
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Still, I'm curious about the perception of intelligent people that he is "like them." All of the intelligent people I know are quite well-spoken (regardless of their political leanings). So, when intelligent people have a gut reaction against good public speaking, I'm just curious as to why.
Well, you and I have very different experiences. I have known many intelligent people with speech impediments. I have a (very) slight stuttering problem myself.
(note that I'm not saying that Bush has a speech impediment -- he just a verbal clutz.)
I have also known a lot of people that are extremely well-spoken but aren't all that bright.
It is a myth that sell-spokenness is correllated to intelligence. It is a myth perpetuated by the well-spoken people people in media.
quote: Maybe it isn't so much that he's an "average guy," as that he's not a typically well-spoken politician.
That's exactly correct.
quote: Again, I tend to a) question this as a criteria for voting, and b) wonder if it's part of a more general trend of anti-intellectualism.
a) It's a stupid criteria for voting, but it does create an emotional reaction in me. I don't think I should vote according to my emotional reactions. But a lot of people do, without even realizing it.
b) I don't think so. I think that this question indicates a tendency in you to correlate intellecutalism with well-spokenness just like you seem to correlate intelligence with well-spokeness.
Of course, I could be wrong. If so, let me know. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
