Bush has the vision Kerry obviously lacks
Why are there so many more undecided voters this year? It's about time that the party lines are danced on. I am one of those who would rather hear what the candidates have to say.
In 2000, I voted against Al Gore. In 2004 I don't want to have to vote against someone, I would rather believe in a candidate enough to want to vote for him. Before Thursday night's debate I wavered on who I thought would make a better leader: would it be the man who proved himself in war, or the one who proved himself with war?
The debate, however, opened my eyes to the personality traits of each of these men, and in turn made it clear to me who would be a better leader. President Bush is a big picture guy, who uses his cabinet as the resource it was designed to be and operates like a CEO. On the flip side, Kerry is a micromanager, who leaves out one important factor, the big picture.
I'm worried when a candidate says close our borders and strengthen the hold we have in the Middle East and prove to the terrorists that we are steadfast in our commitment, and then, in his very next breath, says we need to ease off and withdraw our troops in six months.
I am hoping that more people will vote for the candidate who elects to speak to the people than for the one who tries to impress the people.
Kathryn General
Greenville
Fine. If you want to support Bush, fine. But how can someone come away from that debate last week believing that Bush gave the better reasons for being elected? Speak to the people? Condescend to the people is more like it. Why would you trust a leader who believes he has to mangle his words and oversimplify complicated issues in order for you to understand? What if rather than trying to impress, Kerry simply believes that "the people" can handle a little complexity?
No comments:
Post a Comment