Crazy George?

What I have found out:

Not all liberals are completely wrong 100% of the time.

Not all conservatives are completely right 100% of the time. (maybe 99.9%, LOL)

 

If that clip was supposed to prove your statement above it failed to do so. Yes I watched it, and as I figured beforehand, it was a waste of time.

I'd admit that the President does not always speak with the eloquence we look for. But I do not make a habit of making sport of anyone's impediment no matter who it is.

 

Gee, The President is a Flawed Human Being!

What's the next startling revelation?

 

How perfect some are who judge his imperfection.

 

The stumble tongue thing is not new news. They were talking about that in the last election too. Probably makes people identify better with him.

 

Listen to the ad at http://johnkerryads.websiteanimal.com/

 

I did, you (the spigot question). I'll take your word for it. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes it happens. You know the material. You know what you're planning to say. But all the variables change everything and suddenly you're stumbling, bumbling, forgetting your place, etc.

Your health at the moment plays a role. Your attitude plays a role. The audience plays a role.
Your mood plays a role.

I really think it's really a common occurrence to be to be less than 100% in content and delivery.

Reagan was an actor and still didn't perform at the same level in all his debates.

 

The question remains; why did Bush change so much over four years?

He keeps talking about how hard it is. But he's never exactly clear about what 'it' is.

He's not as connected, as articulate, as optimistic and open as he was when he was governor.

 

Perhaps all of us are expecting too much. Perhaps we are expecting these people to be Statesmen....and they clearly are not. Perhaps that's why some of us are so rudely disappointed.

Okay, I'll speak for myself. That's why I'm so rudely disappointed. And what's even more disappointing is that there are no statesmen on the horizon to choose from.

 

Gee, Maybe Texas is easier to govern than the USA!

 

True. It has a "weak governor" system, in which the real power resides in the Speaker of the House.

And Bush made friends with Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock and Speaker Pete Laney, both democrats.

""In the days following his victory, Bush made a concerted effort to become friends with Pete Laney, the speaker of the House, and Bob Bullock, the lieutenant governor -- both Democrats. (Bullock died this June.) 'Mr. Bush, we can make you a good governor,' Laney said at the trio's very first meeting, 'if you let us.' Bush did," writes Alexander. "While Bush politicked, he let Laney and Bullock push through previously proposed reform bills on education, crime, welfare and tort -- Bush's 'four little issues."
http://www.bushwatch.com/governor.htm

In other words, Bush was a uniter, a reasonable and open person who was willing to compromise and share power to get things done for the people of Texas. He just had to be willing to push for passage of bills, and sign them.

That was a job he could do. I'll admit I miss him. He was four times as good as the twit we have for governor now.

It was easier. The job he has now seems to be slowing eroding his happiness and character.

 

Power corrupts.

Al Gore was a GREAT Senator from the Great State of Tennessee. Something happened to him and he became a caricature of himself once be became the Veep. Worse, the Al Gore who ran for president was NOT the same Al Gore who was my Senator at one time. It's almost like he went off the deep end. Sad. But the people of Tennessee noticed and that's why he didn't carry his home state in the election. Sad.

 

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/clintonlastdays/carlson.html


And they still underestimate him.

 

It's a pity he finally hit a job where being good company with daddy's connections isn't good enough.

It's taking it's toll on him. Clinton was clearly energized by the job and it's demands.

Bush is being wrung out.

 

Clinton was clearly energized alright. Not so sure it was the job of President that did it though.

You completely underestimate Bush.

 

Whatever did it, Clinton was effective and capable. And eight years of presidency seem to have taken little toll on him.

Bush looks and acts beaten down.