Is Kerry Too Smart to Be President?
I have heard it said that John Kerry is too smart. No, I am not joking. A theory has been put forth that he is too “nuanced” for the average American to understand.
I know that I am not too smart for you, and I am sure that most of you are familiar with the term nuance. However, I feel the need to give you a definition. Nuance [n] a subtle difference in opinion. To clarify, Senator Kerry lives in grey areas. While some will see a subject as black, and others see it white, he will see the subtleness in the middle…grey.
Another theory I have heard is that Senator Kerry is currently being coached on being more decisive, giving simpler answers with fewer nuances so as not to confuse those of us Americans not as smart as the senator. This could certainly be seen in some of his debate answers…some of them anyway.
Now why did I go through all of this? Well, I want to examine whether or not Senator Kerry is being decisive when needed and nuanced when that is called for. The answer to which may help us determine if he is nuanced because of his great intelligence or due to his inability to take a decisive position on issues.
In a recent interview President Bush was asked if America might again be hit by terrorism. He responded, "Yes, because we have to be right 100 percent of the time in disrupting any plot and they have to be right once," and though we are safer, "whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up — you know, up in the air."
Now that answer is nuanced. Considering the vastness of our nation, the freedoms we enjoy, the determination of the enemy to strike again, can we say that we will NEVER be hit again? Of course not! Only and idiot would say that he would guarantee we are NEVER hit again, right?
Senator Kerry’s DIRECT response to this was, "You make me president of the United States, we're going to win the war on terror," … "It's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America safe."
He did NOT say it's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America SAFER. He said SAFE. The implication being made, with little nuance, is that since President Bush only promises SAFER(nuanced), you should vote for Senator Kerry because HE promises SAFE(definitive, without nuance). As in a President Kerry would guarantee us SAFE from another terrorist attack, while a second term President Bush will only guarantee us SAFER from another attack.
Which candidate do you feel has the better grasp of the issue of terrorism? Is this one of those issues on which Senator Kerry’s handlers wanted him to drop the nuance and make ridiculous, unkeepable, promises?
Is SAFE or SAFER the more intelligent response? Which candidate seems more intelligent, at least on this issue?
Read more about it...
Yahoo! News - Kerry Ridicules Bush on Terrorism Remark
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
I know that I am not too smart for you, and I am sure that most of you are familiar with the term nuance. However, I feel the need to give you a definition. Nuance [n] a subtle difference in opinion. To clarify, Senator Kerry lives in grey areas. While some will see a subject as black, and others see it white, he will see the subtleness in the middle…grey.
Another theory I have heard is that Senator Kerry is currently being coached on being more decisive, giving simpler answers with fewer nuances so as not to confuse those of us Americans not as smart as the senator. This could certainly be seen in some of his debate answers…some of them anyway.
Now why did I go through all of this? Well, I want to examine whether or not Senator Kerry is being decisive when needed and nuanced when that is called for. The answer to which may help us determine if he is nuanced because of his great intelligence or due to his inability to take a decisive position on issues.
In a recent interview President Bush was asked if America might again be hit by terrorism. He responded, "Yes, because we have to be right 100 percent of the time in disrupting any plot and they have to be right once," and though we are safer, "whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up — you know, up in the air."
Now that answer is nuanced. Considering the vastness of our nation, the freedoms we enjoy, the determination of the enemy to strike again, can we say that we will NEVER be hit again? Of course not! Only and idiot would say that he would guarantee we are NEVER hit again, right?
Senator Kerry’s DIRECT response to this was, "You make me president of the United States, we're going to win the war on terror," … "It's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America safe."
He did NOT say it's not going to be up in the air whether or not we make America SAFER. He said SAFE. The implication being made, with little nuance, is that since President Bush only promises SAFER(nuanced), you should vote for Senator Kerry because HE promises SAFE(definitive, without nuance). As in a President Kerry would guarantee us SAFE from another terrorist attack, while a second term President Bush will only guarantee us SAFER from another attack.
Which candidate do you feel has the better grasp of the issue of terrorism? Is this one of those issues on which Senator Kerry’s handlers wanted him to drop the nuance and make ridiculous, unkeepable, promises?
Is SAFE or SAFER the more intelligent response? Which candidate seems more intelligent, at least on this issue?
Read more about it...
Yahoo! News - Kerry Ridicules Bush on Terrorism Remark
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home