Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Why is it considered laudable and smart by the left's standards to engage in thoughtful debate if that debate will ultimately detract from one's ability to get elected? If Bush can get elected by doggedly refusing to engage debate, and he does so, how does that make him stupid? Isn't he actually smart and the left dumb in that scenario? Is the left's Achilles Heel its refusal to measure "smart"by the results achieved and not the ability to process complex concepts and mentally masturbate an issue to death? It seems to me that the left is frustrated because it is always measuring itself agsinst the right in terms of classical academic expression of intelligence, but the actual scorecard is kept with votes.
|
That the left has "substance" in the debate and the right doesn't is bullshit.
Go back to 2000*. Bush actually answered the debate questions as asked. Because he did so, he had to think for a minute occassionally, and sometime misspoke. Gore on the other hand, turned every question asked into what he wanted to be asked. The simple viewer thought he was intelligent and full of substance. But the careful viewer saw the difference, I think.
Think of the best trial lawyer you know in 2 situations: first a judge is hitting him with questions- he keeps moving but sometimes has to pause or change a little, right. Same guy when he can control the scriprt- say closing- its like watching a lawyer TV show. maybe combined with a televangelist.
*doesn't apply to W last week.
