People tend to vote for people who seem to have a center even if it is fascist.   "The Reagans" puff job on Showtime suggested a rigid core and a man directed by others.   The reality in the real documents was much more than a suggestion.   To have simply used his words and the words of his family, including the stories about Sinatra and Nancy, or the scuttlebutt around the business about the couple, would have been considerably less than dignified and offensive.   Al Gore was a man who seemed smart but without a core and so even his own state wouldn't support him.   Backbone is attractive.   Bush on the other hand is a man who is corrupt and has plenty of brutality.   He was raised that way and it has shown through in the war effort and the corruption of the government.   He has plenty of backbone but his policies are inhumane and ignorant.   He has money but he is uncultured.
 
In my opinion.
 
REH
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 2:16 PM
Subject: RE: Bush the confidence trickster (was RE: [Futurework] Blair's curious illnesses

Arthur,
 
I rather think that this "lack of guile" was what Americans reacted to during the debates with Al Gore. Bush "lost" only one - but even that one resulted in an increase in the poll figures for Bush.
 
I suppose that Reagan had this quality too, Whether or not people agreed with him, they felt he was telling it straight - the way he saw it.
 
This is why in his re-election he carried practically the whole country.
 
Harry
 
********************************************
Henry George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655  Tujunga  CA  91042
Tel: 818 352-4141  --  Fax: 818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
******************************************** 
 
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:55 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Bush the confidence trickster (was RE: [Futurework] Blair's curious illnesses

I think Bush (like Clinton) are a sort of Rohrshach test.  There is an immediate response to the person, mannerisms, smile, manner of walking, etc.  What all this means I will leave to the psychotherapists.
 
For me I found Clinton to be a lying sleaze.  Bush has a lack of guile that may be real or fake.  Probably a liar as well.  I don't know why but I like Bush better than Clinton, so far. 
 
arthur 
 
 
 

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003

Reply via email to