Apologies for the "why I'm voting for Bush" tangent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stompy
That's exactly my point though... he's not even qualified to make those actions if he can't even explain why he made them.
You're good at your job, right? So if you make a choice that people will question later on, could you explain why you made that choice? You should be able to. Even if you aren't good with words or aren't a good debater, you should be able to SOMEWHAT back up and explain why you made the choice you made. You should be able to somewhat convey a coherent response to the thing being asked of you.
*snip*
Not one single "surprise" question was asked.
He's had plenty of time to explain himself in a manner that would actually back up his position, and he didn't do that.
|
First, I'm afraid I didn't see enough of the debate to comment on just how convincing Bush was. But if there were no on-the-spot questions (weren't the rebuttals on-the-spot?), then that'd be odd that Bush wouldn't have decent arguments at the least. I'd say that either Bush needs to hire some new advisors immediately (perhaps onetime2), or that I'd disagree with your claim that Bush could not back up his position to some degree. I find the latter more likely.
Second, I disagree either way. I'm more interested in having a president that does the right thing but can't quite explain his basis for doing so, than a president who does the wrong thing yet has a great-sounding argument for it.