BUSH ON THE MOVE
Re: George Neumayr’s The Peripatetic President:
George Neumayr hit a home run with “The Peripatetic President.” To those familiar with psychological type (e.g., the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator), Mr. Bush’s pumped-up performance serves as an example of an ESTP (Extroverted, Sensing, Thinking, Perceiving) in action. Having a dominant function of “extroverted sensing,” the President was energized by the setting, charging his batteries as he walked and talked. As compared to Coral Gables, Mr. Bush found the St. Louis debate more “in the moment” and, therefore, relevant. The questioners were voters with whom he could connect. His opponent, I believe, is an INTP (Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, Perceiving). Having a dominant function of introverted thinking, Mr. Kerry found the less formal setting a bit of a distraction, a tolerable burden.
— Rick Kresse
Finally!!! A conservative who saw the debate for what it was, a slam-dunk for Bush. He was energized, Kerry was stiff. Bush answered almost every question, completely and honestly; Kerry avoided so many. It was actually fun to watch as the president got the audience to laugh and have fun with him, all at Kerry’s expense. Kerry was visibly perturbed, though he tried not to show it.
Thanks for the positive note,
— Mary Baker Blades
Your editorial is perfect. Thank you.
— Martin N. Tirrell
Lisbon, New Hampshire
I subscribe to the Spectator and enjoy the website. I liked your recent essay on Kerry’s debate performance, but I think that saying “Kerry lacks [a conscience]” is an unfair criticism. I don’t like Kerry much and won’t vote for him, but a man without a conscience is a monster, and such a charge should not be made lightly.
— Vivek Rao
Yes, it’s true. President Bush did far better in this second debate after his somewhat understated performance in the first, however, in light of the revealing Mark Halperin memo to his ABC news people, it will be difficult to determine this from the reports of the main stream media. It seems that, according to Halperin, it is ABC’s responsibility to help the unwashed electorate “evaluate” the worthiness of both candidates. I guess that this would be all right if it were done by ABC doing what they are supposed to do – – that is, giving objective information to the public and allowing them to make up their own minds. Not ABC! It is their job to let Mr. Kerry’s exaggerations and misstatements go because they are less harmful than those of President Bush, so they are to be soft pedaled while President Bush’s are to be highlighted. This is what passes for news reporting. And now the best part. This fellow is so arrogant, stupid, ignorant, unconcerned, (check one) that he writes a memo to his staff, laying out this course of action. Move over CBS.
— Joseph Baum
Newton Falls, Ohio
You saw what I saw. what a relief !! An older person such as myself suffers when they hear the “pundits” after the viewing. I wonder if it’s my hearing or my mind that is going.
Kerry — I am a Catholic. I heard — I am an apostate who buys in totally to the secular liberal agenda.
— Annette Cwik
WHERE THERE’S HOPE
Re: Wlady Pleszczynski’s Kerry Stiffed:
This is a great article!
I laughed at your description of the “dolts” in the audience. You hit the nail on the head. I have lived in St. Louis my entire life. Some thing that getting dressed up is a pair of black jeans and a dress shirt (no tie of course).
You were right on about the pro-life questions. I can hardly stand to look at Kerry, much less listen to him speak, but I thoroughly enjoyed watching him stammer and stutter through the pro-life questions. It was great!
Keep up the good work. I found this website while on rushlimbaugh.com during “Rathergate” and have been checking it out daily ever since.
Thanks for your great article on the 2nd presidential debate. Just so! You made excellent observations about the President, and more from the heart than the sterile and stale discussion that so often passes for intellectual analysis around here.
I sent a copy to my folks. Keep up the good work!
— Dean C. Bruckner
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Humorless, elitist John Kerry, forever the pontificator in the well of the Senate or in front of a microphone, fails the coal-dust test of Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va.
Son-of-a-coal-miner Byrd said on “Meet the Press” on July 18, “I’ve told him (Kerry) he should go to West Virginia. He should shake hands with the people. He should be at their level and get a little coal dust on his hands. Get some of that dirty dust on his hands and on his face and live in spirit with the working people of this country, the coal miners.”
Likable President Bush, though, interacts with people as the businessman he is. He knows you can only dupe a current or prospective client once. And that you’d better be careful about out-dressing or over-speaking any client. Too, Mr. Bush also knows that humor, especially self-deprecating, helps create relationships and often reveals a person’s strength and humility.
— C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton, West Virginia
If the most rewarding aspect of Friday night’s debate was the President’s resurgence, then the most striking was the tone of the questions. Elicited from a presumably “balanced” town hall audience, the questions had a remarkably conservative — not to mention well-informed and smart — tone.
“Mr. Kerry, why did you put a trial lawyer on the ticket?”
“Mr. President, why are you letting my rights erode under the Patriot Act?”
“Senator, since thousands of people have been healed using adult and placental stem cells, yet none have been healed via embryos, why do you support embryonic stem cell research?”
“Iran is clearly emerging as a nuclear threat. What are you going to do about it?”
The list could go on in the same vein. Great questions that received tepid answers (usually from both candidates, regrettably). If the audience in St. Louis is Midwestern-typical of the greater mass, then in this cycle the electorate is soberly considering serious issues, with a bent toward real solutions.
That does not bode well for our vague, “liberal but not A liberal” Foreign Minister Kerry.
— Todd Wieland
Did you notice the white-haired lady, with the red flower? Looking over Kerry’s shoulder, on our right.
Early in the debate, when Kerry was speaking, this lady ever so slightly was shaking her head side to side, as if to say “You liar.”
Check it out and see what you think.
— Greg McCoy
Another of your great articles. I agree with you so often I’m beginning to think you must be really, really smart. I thought Kerry’s, sorry, Kewwy’s, answer to the abortion question was flat out incomprehensible. Nobody, and I mean nobody, could possibly claim to understand it. And then Dubya’s first words were how do you decipher that?
— Alfred Stanbury
Sarah Degenhart: Not just another pretty, concerned face.
I went to college with Sarah at the University of Dallas and dated her back when she was Sarah Halverson, and let me tell you, not only was she voted “sweetest girl” in our class, but she graduated summa cum laude Phi Beta Kappa with the departmental awards for English and Education. And she was a state finalist to be a Rhodes scholar (but then again who wasn’t). And of course, she was an absolute heart-breaker. There are probably a thousand sallow men pining away for her in the Northwest, Midwest, and Southwest altogether. As far as I know, I’m the only one at Brown University.
— Alex Alderman
I think the lack of respect Bush showed Charlie Gibson and the rules is testimony of his lack of respect for America and the world.
— Kevin R. Metzger
Los Angeles, California
So the MSM pinheads, as usual, said Kerry won on substance. How? What substance?
The only “substance” Kerry gave was “I have a plan and it’s not Bush’s plan because Bush is a failure.” When pressed on what his plan is he breaks down and admits, “Okay, it’s Bush’s plan but I’ll do it better, quicker, more efficiently, smoother, tighter, more sincere, and I care more”!
Then the bizarre “read my lips” moment by Kerry. My only complaint with Bush was that he missed the opportunity to say, “Oh really Senator? No tax increases on those earning under $200,000 a year? So I assume that means you agree with making the tax cuts permanent. Making the child tax credit permanent…the lower capital gains tax rate permanent…the elimination of the death tax permanent…the elimination of the marriage penalty permanent. Is this so?”
Kerry’s only other message on taxes was, “I’ll increase the child tax credit by $1,000.” Wow! Didn’t Bush JUST SIGN that extended credit into law again just this week? I can’t believe no pundits I saw caught this glaring case of pandering and, again, claiming he’d do exactly what Bush is doing but better. It’s the same silly response every Democrat makes when they are forced to agree with an issue: but we’ll double it; fully fund it (and just what the hell does that mean?); spend it better, care more, etc.
The fact is Kerry could have come on stage naked and played with himself for 90 minutes and the left-wing pundits in the MSM would call him the winner.
Overall I thought the questions were good. The only truly stupid one was from the limp-wristed guy that editorialized about the Patriot Act. Bush cleaned his clock!
— Greg Barnard
George and Wlady both have good insights on the second debate. I caught only a little bit of it but Bush did hold his own and Kerry came off looking like a pure idiot with his foaming at the mouth persona. Personally, I am more than a little tired of hearing Kerry rant and rave about Bush’s shortcomings and offering nothing in return except hate. That is because Bush for all his shortcomings is doing the job he was elected to do while Kerry in his 20 years in the Senate did nothing except vote for more taxes, more spending, less defense, and murder on demand (referred to as abortion rights). These debates are the last hope of the liberal establishment to defeat Bush. That is because the liberals are good at rhetoric.…
As for me and mine — is it November 2nd yet?
— Pete Chagnon
Mr. Pleszczynski failed to mention the most startling and puzzling aspect of John Kerry’s appearance last night. How can a man have orange deepening to magenta complexion on September 29, a deep tan on September 30 (first debate), and faded to an embalmer’s pallor by October 8? This rugged outdoorsman ought to have a sustainable tan, it seems to me.…
— Diane S. Smith
So. San Francisco, California
READING WHAT’S ON THE LABEL
Re: Lawrence Henry’s Brand Sprawl:
I thought that the article by Lawrence Henry ‘”Brand Sprawl” concerning the excessive amount of choices in the marketplace was dead on. I am a manager for the largest retailer in the world, Wal-Mart, and presenting the consumer with an overwhelming array of choices has been fostered by the retailers need to grow sales. The companies that manufacture the product know that their profit margins will be cut when Wal-Mart demands a better price from them. To counter this, a new untested product without any sales history is released. There is not an end in site to the glut of choices that will appear at any given time. Big box retailers have the mindset that if a new product is put in front of the buyer, desire will dictate if a purchase is made, not need.
— Joe Dobbs
Lawrence Henry and I share the same horror of selecting an OverTheCounter drug for a simple cold. As a physician, I understand that I need to go to the fine print of the “active ingredient” and I do so. But my frustration turns to disgust after I turn over the third box to read the “active ingredients” and find the same combinations.
In the “good old days” we had fewer selections and I could remember the box and the ingredients. If all of these manufacturers can make a great label and box, then I want the “active ingredient(s)” in large letters on the label. I am SICK and tired of marketing euphemisms. I can’t even tell my sick patients which box to pick, except by referring to the fine-print “active ingredient.”
I now recommend Mucinex®, a single ingredient guafenesin, to loosen mucous for coughs and sinus trouble. It is the main ingredient in old Robitussin® and less sloppy. There is Tylenol® or Advil® or plain old aspirin for the aches and pains or fever. Finally, I suggest for the stuffy nose a single ingredient pseudoephedrine, which started out as Sudafed® — but the brand name Sudafed® was destroyed by this metastatic marketing that Lawrence Henry so aptly describes. This is my basic armamentarium. But it is still hard to discover the “right stuff.”
— Jim McMurry (M.D.)
THINGS ARE LOOKING UP
Re: Jay D. Homnick’s Shame On Ahead-Shrinkers:
I too share Mr. Homnick’s optimism. But the negative reporting by all facets of the press seems an attempt to get their guy elected (read: Kerry), or to discourage me from voting for Bush. I probably watch too much TV, read too much Internet news, and vainly (?) hope that the proletariat also see through the fog and acknowledge George W. Bush not as a perfect but, as the “President of our times”, and most worthy of re-election. A reasonably honest person our current President, who is committed to rid the world of the Real Tyranny that we face. A Tyranny that cannot be negotiated with, or even be “talked to.” The frustrating thing about these elections, whichever partisan leanings one has, is that it is up to the candidate to make the case, regardless of our contribution to the noise.
— P. Aaron Jones
Jay Homnick is doing great work for the website. His last column is more poetry than prose, but I like it. You’ve got a nice stable going these days.
— Hunter Baker
Re: Paul Beston’s Thank God It’s Friday:
Paul Beston’s reference to George Bush’s Death Struggle with the English language made me smile. No one has ever explained to me why John Kerry (or that other JFK) can look at I-D-E-A and pronounce it “idear.” I-DE-Ah, What could be simpler? I am told the mis-pronunciation is Brahmin, and therefore acceptable. Why? Isn’t it every bit as inexplicable and unforgivable as seeing “nuclear” and saying “nucular”?
Half the people in public office say nook-u-ler and get away with it. Jimmeh Cottah, that Jawjuh peanut farmer who, I believe, served on a nuclear submarine, pronounced it “nookyuh.”
Bill Richardson, when he was the subject of heavy questioning on Energy, whined to the Senate committee, “You have been EXCROSHIATING (for “excoriating”) me for two days….” Didn’t impede his forward motion. Now governor of NM. Yet George Bush will be flayed for every verbal mis-step.
An L.A. radio talk show host (woman) on a recent Fox News segment likened voters to “lemurs marching off the cliff.” Lemmings, lemurs — easy mistake. She will be back several times before the election is over to give us the benefit of her wisdom. And George Bush will be hauled up by more polished columnists.
I don’t recall who it was, may have been Joe Biden — who said “We’ll cross that line in the sand when we come to it.” May not have been, but he is past master at mixing metaphors. I have never yet heard anyone remark on Joe’s malapropisms and general hashing of speech.
I’d rather listen to GWB stumble over nuclear for four more years than four minutes of John Kerry telling me has an idear. And God help us if “Cuber” comes up!
— Diane Smith
So. San Francisco
I will take great pleasure when Bush loses the debate tonight as it will make the final debate a real issue, and Bush will then secure a resounding victory just in time to push the polls in his favor as the comeback kid. No doubt the Special Forces will also grab Osama Bin Laden about a week before the election, oil prices will fall, and we will get a confession out of Saddam that he moved the WMD to Syria. Additionally, the Germans will say the U.S. was right all along about going to war in Iraq, as will Russia, and the final days before the election, the Swift Boat veterans will run a final TV spot that will show Kerry in Paris negotiating a treaty with the NVA. Ahh, to close the election out, the election will be a tie, and in the recount Jimmy Carter will announce that George W actually has won. Oh course, it might not go quite that well, but when you are as scared as I am that the President will not be reelected, fantasies are a natural escape route.
— Paul Melody
LET’S GO TO THE VIDEOTAPE
Re: Enemy Central’s Anchors Away:
The usually astute “Enemy Central” missed a beat on this one.
For me, the telling moment of the Meat-Puppet love fest was when Rather’s buddy Brokaw said that the “attacks on the Internet went well beyond the facts to directly attack Dan’s professional reputation and career.”
Oh, Golly! Isn’t that just what Dan did to GWB while waving the forged memos? Didn’t Dan say that we must go beyond the facts and just get right down to skewering George’s career by attacking his reputation?
I laughed so hard when I heard it that I lost my breath. To bad the assembled crowd missed it. If there were “a doctor in the house” at that gathering, she should have prescribed irony supplements to be taken with their morning viagra vitamin.
Too funny! It reminded me of an event a few years ago when a Missouri Congressman slipped on his gaffe. A reporter asked him why he said the stupid remark… “Was it a Freudian slip?” The Congressman replied, “How can it be a Freudian slip? I was unaware that I said it.”
Now that was priceless. The Congressman showed his ignorance, but Brokaw revealed his vapidity. Considering these two remarks and who made them, I think Brokaw’s was the greater gaffe. Just my $0.02,
— Newt Love
I caught the group therapy session for our network anchors on C-Span the other night. I swear, you can read and hear about liberal elitism for decades but never truly comprehend the utter arrogance and deluded self-assurance of those elitists until you’ve actually seen and heard them peddling the crap. Brokaw, Jennings and Rather are a parody of themselves in all their pompousness. These blowhards are a treasure trove for comedy writers and mental health professionals. The sooner these idiots lose what’s left of their dwindling influence won’t be a moment too soon.
— David Mills
Re: James Bowman’s review of Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry:
I find John Kerry less a Lincolnesque figure but more like the pitiful Jimmy Carter. The episode that illustrates it best (that no one seems to remember for some reason) was the two form letters his office sent to a constituent who wrote his office commenting on a bill pending before the Senate. The two letters essentially said as one should not surprised that he supported the bill and opposed it. Surprise Surprise! Pandering is his game and François is his name.
— Jack Wheatley
You guys are good — your writers and contributors are excellent — the humor, wit and astute observations much appreciated.
But I thoroughly enjoy the fascinating wisdom (usually) and writings of your readers — the letters that exceed anything I’ve found in ‘most any other publication (especially the N.Y. Times).
Really, my hat (if I wore one) would be off to your audience. Mighty stimulating!