Campaign Desk prints a warning from one of its readers about the Iowa Electronic markets that I think should be flooded to any news organization that decides it would be fun to write about its miraculous predictive powers in past elections:
“Once you get past the lack of acuity [of] markets … in general, there are simply too many additional problems with these minute exchanges” such as the Iowa Electronics Markets. “They are too small, have too little money at stake, and are therefore readily susceptible to undue ‘influence'” by mischief makers.
The fact is that in past elections nobody paid attention to them so there wasn’t the likelihood that anyone would think they would be worth gaming as they are this year.
Therefore, the IEM is best seen now as an unscientific online poll. The money is pretty inconsequential so it’s not very risky to make the numbers move and that’s exactly what’s happening.
There are a couple of ways to deal with this. One is to attempt to educate the media, as this piece does, about how easy it is to manipulate such a small market. The other is to fight fire with fire and put our own cash on the barrelhead.
I’m not sure how effective the first option would be since it’s never worked before. But, it might just be worth opening an account to trade in these last couple of weeks. Maybe it’s not a big enough deal to worry about, though. Still, for those with a lot of disposable income, this might be a place to wager a couple of bucks.
He was a good guy who inspired us all when his previously charmed life threw him a terrible curveball. One would think that Americans, no matter the political party or religion, would all mourn a man who showed such courage and determination in the face of adversity and spoke so eloquently for others with similar disabilities. It seems almost inhuman that some people can’t feel any empathy for someone who had been a celebrated movie superhero one moment and in the next became a fragile corporeal being facing the most fundamental and difficult challenges a person can face — and who then became an inspiration and spokeman for others with the catastrophic disability he lived with from that moment on. But there are such people.
Evidently, over on Free Republic quite a few people got out of hand and made some ugly remarks about Reeve and the moderator had to remove the threads. Here are some examples of the perfectly acceptable ones that remain:
Wouldn’t rule out that Kerry might have spoke with Reeve before the last debate. Reeve might have had an idea the end was near for him and told Kerry to play up the emotional angle with stem cell research and Reeve’s own paralyzed circumstance.
Wonder if Hell is handicapped accessible..
The willingness to sacrifice another life to save his own was not worthy of the Man of Steel.
I’m sorry, but I have no compassion for this man. He suffered a terrible injury through his own fault and, instead of accepting it, he lashes out in anger against Bush.
I would love to have been a fly on the wall when Kerry got the news of Reeve’s death. Did he hang up and shout “YES!”? Did he dance a little jig? Did he excitedly phone McAuliffe with the news? Noone but Mama T knows…
Reeve? Is this the guy who, his picture-perfect Hollywood life having been tragically altered by an accident, spent the remainder of his life advocating the killing of unborn children so that he might walk again?
He was a 3rd-rate actor (Ever see him in any movie besides Superman? When playing a real human being, he was dreadful!). When injured living a life of luxury and leisure, he fought for vain, desperate hopes for what might keep him alive, even if it caused the deaths of millions. Contrary to mythology, he sunk into bitter, violent anger, pouring every ounce of derision he possibly could on Christianity and America. And then he simply died.
I’m sorry for Reeve’s family…his wife has stood by him for several tragic years. However, to have liberals (Ron Reagan will probably be leading the charge) milk this is disgusting. And let’s be honest…Christopher Reeve WAS doing something that was very dangerous when he broke his neck. A lot of us common folks are living with situations that just happened…beyond our control and not our fault. That’s what life is about, and we don’t have wealthy friends helping support an extravagant lifestyle.
I have a feeling that Kerry was tipped off about Reeve’s condition prior to the 2nd debate, which is why he mentioned him along with Michael J. Fox. You can bet Kerry will again mention Reeve at the 3rd debate. It is this crude, blatant exploitation of the disabled and afflicted, which make the Dems so despicable. They provide false hope in order to win debating points and votes. The implication will be that GWB caused the death of Reeve.
You could make an argument that the first implemention of “Political Correctness” was the custom of speaking better about someone after their death than while they were living. But I won’t try to make that argument here. I will say this: if it were demonstrated that Reeve, knowing the seriousness of his condition, actually made an explicit request that his possible death be used to help the Kerry campaign, all subsequent scorn would be deserved.
Oh, this is going to be disgusting. Bitter twst of fate that Reeve is mentioned by Kerry and then he dies. Or perhaps did Kerry know in advance Reeve was ill/on his deathbed?
Is there no level of filth to which these Dems won’t sink?
The main gist of the dem line is: we need to keep legal the ability to take growing humans and detroy them through abortion so we can use their body parts to help other people like Chris Reeve (potentially) live better. The bloodlust is positively demonic.
I am just not happy hearing about this this AM.
Ahh… reminds me of the Paul Wellstone rally err memorial service. Always trying to work in a political advantage over a death, aren’t they.
You think you’re cynical? I am wondering if Clark Kent would possibly pull the plug on himself in a desperate attempt to “matyrize” the stem-cell issue and help Kerry?
Reeve seemed like a nice chap until he got involved with the pro-death wing of the democrat party. We can’t always get what we want, but we often get what we deserve.
The fact is, Mr. Reeve spent his last days using his fame and access to champion the murder of unborn children.
The fact is, Mr. Reeve took very clear and very selfish political stands and used his medical condition to gin up sympathy for murder.
My point is that some people spend their entire lives breaking down traditional morality and then when they die they are eulogized as if they did as much for the world as Mother Theresa.
Reeves spent his last few years advocating the destruction of human life in order to find a cure for what ailed HIM. It may have seemed selfless to some, but in reality and objectively, it was selfish. He was looking for a cure and if it meant the destruction of unborn children to acheive that end, then too bad for them. He was not willing to let a fetus stand between him and his goalpost.
Sure hope he was a saved man. Otherwise right now he is roasting in hell.
I shudder to think what the deleted threads contained…
Reeve was a better man on his worst day in Hollywood than these solipsistic little morons could ever hope to be.
As we watch the distressing spectacle of the cable shows shilling for Junior in these last three weeks, I think it might be helpful to take a trip down memory lane. It was once much, much worse. There was a time not so long ago when the boys and girls in the press were panting and moaning and fidgeting in their seats at the mere mention of the TopGun in his Chippendale’s costume.
MATTHEWS: Let’s go to this sub–what happened to this week, which was to me was astounding as a student of politics, like all of us. Lights, camera, action. This week the president landed the best photo of in a very long time. Other great visuals: Ronald Reagan at the D-Day cemetery in Normandy, Bill Clinton on horseback in Wyoming. Nothing compared to this, I’ve got to say.
Katty, for visual, the president of the United States arriving in an F-18, looking like he flew it in himself. The GIs, the women on–onboard that ship loved this guy.
Ms. KAY: He looked great. Look, I’m not a Bush man. I mean, he doesn’t do it for me personally, especially not when he’s in a suit, but he arrived there…
MATTHEWS: No one would call you a Bush man, by the way.
Ms. KAY: …he arrived there in his flight suit, in a jumpsuit. He should wear that all the time. Why doesn’t he do all his campaign speeches in that jumpsuit? He just looks so great.
MATTHEWS: I want him to wa–I want to see him debate somebody like John Kerry or Lieberman or somebody wearing that jumpsuit.
Mr. DOBBS: Well, it was just–I can’t think of any, any stunt by the White House–and I’ll call it a stunt–that has come close. I mean, this is not only a home run; the ball is still flying out beyond the park.
MATTHEWS: Well, you know what, it was like throwing that strike in Yankee Stadium a while back after 9/11. It’s not a stunt if it works and it’s real. And I felt the faces of those guys–I thought most of our guys were looking up like they were looking at Bob Hope and John Wayne combined on that ship.
Mr. GIGOT: The reason it works is because of–the reason it works is because Bush looks authentic and he felt that he–you could feel the connection with the troops. He looked like he was sincere. People trust him. That’s what he has going for him.
MATTHEWS: Fareed, you’re watching that from–say you were over in the Middle East watching the president of the United States on this humongous aircraft carrier. It looks like it could take down Syria just one boat, right, and the president of the United States is pointing a finger and saying, `You people with the weapons of mass destruction, you people backing terrorism, look out. We’re coming.’ Do you think that picture mattered over there?
Mr. ZAKARIA: Oh yeah. Look, this is a part of the war where we have not–we’ve allowed a lot of states to do some very nasty stuff, traffic with nasty people and nasty material, and I think it’s time to tell them, you know what, `You’re going to be help accountable for this.’
MATTHEWS: Well, it was a powerful statement and picture as well.
After the segment, Chris handed out cigarettes and ice cold bottles of evian to the panel. But they had rolled over and gone to sleep.
If there has ever been a more embarrassing display of repressed erotic longing on national television, I haven’t seen it. Oh, wait:
MATTHEWS: What do you make of this broadside against the USS Abraham Lincoln and its chief visitor last week?
LIDDY: Well, I– in the first place, I think it’s envy. I mean, after all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man [Official Naomi Wolf Spin-Point]. And here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his parachute harness, you know — and I’ve worn those because I parachute — and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those, run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman’s vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn’t count — they’re all liars. Check that out. I hope the Democrats keep ratting on him and all of this stuff so that they keep showing that tape.
“You know, it’s funny. I shouldn’t talk about ratings,” he [Matthews] said, also gazing at Bush’s crotch. “But last night was a riot because … these pictures were showing last night, and everybody’s tuning in to see these pictures again.”
I plan to make it my life’s work to remind Chris Matthews of these little exchanges. It was the day that Matthews revealed that he and the other mediawhores were not just shilling for the GOP for professional reasons, but that they actually had a barely contained (and inexplicable) sexual attraction to George W. Bush. It explained so very much. Today, when you see him and Mrs Greenspan rushing to proclaim Cheney a big winner,for instance, perhaps it is best understood as a way of distancing themselves from an unrequited love while leaving the door open in case there is still a chance for a passionate encounter, for old time’s sake.
If there is one question that I would love to see somebody ask any member of the Bush administration, it is how come they are fighting for their lives when less than eighteen short months ago they not only had a 90% approval rating, they had the entire US press corpse on its knees, quivering and drooling in anticipation of a mere taste of the manly presidential life force. Seems to me that’s the real story of this election. How in the hell did they fall so far, so fast?
It appears that the the latest presidential bulge pictures — the one in the middle of his back, this time — are making their way into the major news media. And the White House has no decent explanation for them. Indeed, they seem to be in a bit of a tizzy.
First they said that pictures showing the bulge might have been doctored. But then, when the bulge turned out to be clearly visible in the television footage of the evening, they offered a different explanation.
“There was nothing under his suit jacket,” said Nicolle Devenish, a campaign spokeswoman.
“It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric.”
Ms. Devenish could not say why the “rumpling” was rectangular.
Nor was the bulge from a bulletproof vest, according to campaign and White House officials; they said Mr. Bush was not wearing one.
This article on the BBC web-site, hilariously headlined “Bush’s bulge stirs media rumours” is equally skeptical of the explanations, but they go the extra mile and interview the president’s tailor, who says that it was simply a pucker. A perfectly rectangular pucker.
I believe that the identity of Hopalong Bushie’s tailor … a man profiled here on Hillnews.com named Georges de Paris, provides the answer to the mystery of the bulge:
Georges de Paris — that’s his real name — is a household name at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., where he is regularly summoned these days from his cluttered shop two blocks away to measure and fit President Bush, just as he did his father and every other president of the last 40 years.
[…]
de Paris, who became a U.S. citizen in 1969, met the current president while altering slacks for his father. Shortly after the younger Bush was declared the winner of the contested 2000 election, the White House called again.
[…]
Since then, de Paris has made numerous visits to the White House, often on a crash basis, to add a suit or sport coat to the president’s wardrobe or to measure and fit aides like Chief of Staff Andrew Card for custom-made suits that cost between $2,000 and $3,000.
Oooh la la. Monsieur de Paris charges quite the pretty penny for his creations, doesn’t he?
I hate to say it, but of I were a NASCAR dad or a security mom, I’d be more than a little bit concerned that this french “tailor” may have put that perfectly rectangular bulge in the preznit’s suit to spy for Chirac. It’s just the kind of thing those old Europeans do…
And just what in the heck is our manly preznit doing letting some man named Georges, (“Zhorzh — that’s what everyone, including the president, calls him”) touch his bulges in a time of war, anyway? Couldn’t they find a tailor from one of the allied countries like Uzbekhistan or Poland?
At the very least, it is more than a little unwise to allow nefarious french tailors to undermine the president’s credibility by placing suspicious rectangular “puckers” in his clothing. Georges de Paris is obviously an unlawful combatant. Send him to Gitmo and force him to wear one of those horrid bright orange jumpsuits. We’ll find out the truth soon enough.
Angry, hectoring, condescending and loud. Very loud. He yelled at John Kerry, he yelled at Charlie Gibson, he even yelled at at the questioners. He yelled in short, punctuated bursts as if he thought he needed to spell out simple concepts. (He looked like he wanted to walk up to a couple of the questioners and jab a finger in their chests as he lectured them like children.) But then, he’s always slightly pissed.
From James Wolcott’s “The Bush Bunch,” Vanity Fair July 2004:
Over Christmas in 2000, on the eve of W’s joining his father and brother Jeb in Florida for a fishing trip (a bit of R&R after the protracted recount battle), Jenna suffered stomach troubles and was rushed to the hospital. She required an emergency appendectomy. Her mother slept at the hospital; her father wasn’t present for the surgery and, never one to miss a vacation, didn’t let it delay his exit. Gerhart picks up the rest of the story in THE PERFECT WIFE:
“The next day, he went on vacation to Florida just as he had planned. As he boarded the plane, reporters inquired about Jenna’s condition. ‘Maybe she’ll be able to join us in Florida,’ the president-elect said. ‘If not, she can clean her room.’ The reporters stared at him, stunned. ‘I couldn’t believe it,’ one of those present later said. ‘First of all, I’m a father, and I cannot imagine a scenario in which my daughter would have major surgery and I would just leave on vacation. And then he just seemed so snarly about it, like he was pissed at her.'”
Why would a father be “pissed” at his daughter for falling ill? An emergency appendectomy isn’t some little sniffle. Notice how, despite his reputed ease with strong women, Bush can’t resist the domestic stereotype when the safely catch comes off his mouth. When the usually punctual Karen Hughes is late for a meeting after being stuck in traffic (she recounts in TEN MINUTES FROM NORMAL), Bush, “a man who hates to wait,” greets her by asking, “Did you have fun shopping?” Laura he has sweeping the porch back in Crawford like some pioneer woman. And Jenna he sentences to stay home during the family vacation and clean her room, as if she were being punished.
He’s the dad who is always mad. Surly, unpredictable, spoiled. You know the type. “I’m the commander in chief, see. I don’t need to explain … Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”
Last night, the only mistake he admitted to making was appointing some unnamed officials at whom he was obviously peeved. He said it in the same tone in which he said that Jenna could stay and clean her room.
This is a man who treats women like servants and men like lackeys. And last night he angrily yelled at America as if we were his long suffering, abused wife.
Ok. So, they’re reduced to “liberal liberal liberal.” Like every other election since 1968. Yawn.
Is that enough this time?
C’Mon. For any thinking person, Kerry won this debate. But, since Bush didn’t completely act like a blithering fool, shills like Pat Buchanan are out there to spin him as a great winner. He just said he was impressed that Bush managed to control himself.
The whores are out in force and they have their marching orders. But the fact is that Kerry was statesmanlike, in control and strong. They can try to make their bubble boy look like a winner, but it’s a hard sell.
Call the networks. Let them know what you think. Here are the numbers:
“I noticed the Democrats go crazy when it is pointed out, you know, I think the terrorists would prefer for the Democrats to win this one. You know, they don’t argue that’s not true. What they say is, “That argument is out of bounds.” But of course it is. Surely Osama [bin Laden] — well, I think Osama’s dead — but you know Al Qaeda terrorists must have some relative preference for one presidential candidate over another. Why can’t it be stated? Of course they prefer the Democrats because the Democrats will never think it’s the right war at the right time.” [Radio America, Battle Line with Alan Nathan, 10/7]
One good way to outrage the enemy [Democrats] is to defend the United States of America. … It drives them crazy. [KVI Talk Radio 570, the Kirby Wilbur show, 10/7]
The liberals already lost Vietnam for us. The Swift Boat Vets just aren’t going to let them lose another war for us. [KVI Talk Radio 570, the Kirby Wilbur show, 10/7]
Democrats are good Bolsheviks. No matter, I mean, their guy could fall flat on his face, as I think [Senator John] Edwards did, and they will all rush to the TV cameras and say, “Oh, Edwards won the debate.” And so you end up with a consensus position, even when the Republican beat the Democrat about the head, as [Vice President Dick] Cheney did with Edwards. [Radio America, Battle Line with Alan Nathan, 10/7]
[Responding to a caller who asked, “When are we going to stop misusing the word ‘liberal’ and start calling Democrats ‘socialists,’ which they really are?”] That’s funny you say that. I mean they [Democrats] are socialists, but I hear liberal, and I think that’s a worse epithet than socialist. … I have pretty negative associations with it. [Radio America, Joseph Farah’s WorldNetDaily RadioActive, 10/6]
Their [Democrats’] response to a principled argument, you know, on taxes or on the war in Iraq, is to investigate your personal life to find out if you’re into S and M. [KVI Talk Radio 570, the Kirby Wilbur show, 10/7]
[Responding to host John Moore, who asked, “You have very little patience with liberals, but that’s half the population of your country essentially. … So, I mean, you don’t hate half the population of the United States, do you?”] No, I hold them [liberals] in contempt and I give them a Midol [medication for premenstrual syndrome]. That seems to calm them down. [NEWSTALK 1010 CFRB, the John Moore show, 10/7]
Paul Begala and Dick Gephardt and every single Democrat should REFUSE to appear against this fucking Nazi whore on television. It is a travesty that this insane harpy is part of any decent commentary on broadcast television.
Please spare me any more whining and weeping about Michael Moore in the future. This heinous douchebag makes Moore look like Winston Churchill. If she’s giving that pathetic old fuck Larry King bj’s that’s her business, but the Democratic party really should draw the line at appearing on television with the GOP Paris Hilton version of Benito Mussolini as if she’s a rational person. What will we tell the children?
Have we ever had such an angry, privileged, snotty, immature president in the history of this country?
Bush can still not give even one example of a mistake he’s made — except appointing certain people he appointed that he won’t name. (It must be Paul O’Neill and Larry Lindsay because they are the only ones he fired.)
As he has always been, he remains, a piece of shit.
Before the debate I wanted to reprise the following post in case anybody has any lingering doubt that George W. Bush has two faces. One Public, One Private. One Phony, One Real:
Over the last week or so we have seen an edgy, enigmatic black and white image of George W. Bush appear on web-sites and blogs. At first people thought that sites had been hacked, as Eschaton and Kos and Democratic Underground spontaneously erupted with the black and white figure only to have it disappear and randomly return. Within days it linked to a mysterious DNC web-site with cryptic material that only slowly came into focus. Clearly something was up.
This image is disconcerting and it evokes strong reactions because it symbolizes the cognitive dissonance so many of us have been living with for the last four years as we’ve watched the man who lost the election but won the office drive us to distraction with the contradictions of his character. And nothing has been more frustrating than the fact that so many in the media and in the public at large seemed to see something entirely different than we did.
I believe that this happened because after 9/11, the media cast Bush in the role of strong, resolute leader, perhaps because the nation needed him to be that, at least for a little while. And the people gratefully laid that mantle on him and he took it because the office demanded no less. The narrative of the nation at war required a warrior leader and George W. Bush was all we had. Karl Rove and others understood that they could use this veil to soothe the American people and flatter the president to take actions that no prudent, thoughtful leader would have taken after our initial successes in Afghanistan. This “man with the bullhorn” image of Bush crystallized in the minds of many Americans and has not been revisited until now.
That phony image took us from a sense of national unity to a misguided war with Iraq; it excused his failure to effectively manage the economy and fomented partisan warfare by portraying dissent as unpatriotic; it allowed people to overlook his obvious failure to take the threat of al Qaeda seriously before 9/11 (and even after) and created a hagiography based on wishful thinking and emotional need rather than any realistic appraisal of his leadership.
His handlers wisely kept him under wraps, allowing him face time on television only in the company of world leaders or to give stirring speeches written by his gifted speechwriter, Mark Gerson. He rarely held press conferences and when he took questions, he was aggressively unresponsive, choosing instead to offer canned sound bites and slogans and daring the press corps to call him on it. Few did. The mask stayed in place and he remained a symbol instead of a president — the symbol of American strength, resilience and fortitude. He was, in many people’s minds, the president they wished they had.
On Thursday night sixty-one million people watched George W. Bush for the first time since 9/11 not as that symbol, but as a man. And for those who had not reassessed their belief in his personal leadership since 9/11, it was quite a shock. Their strong leader was inarticulate, arrogant, confused and immature. They must be wondering who that man was.
The truth is that since George W. Bush entered politics he has always had two faces. In fact, virtually everything you know about his public persona is the opposite of the real person.
He claims to be a compassionate, caring man, often admonishing people to “love your neighbor like you loved to be loved yourself.” Yet, going all the way back to Yale, he is quoted as saying he disapproved of his fellow students as “people who felt guilty about their lot in life because others were suffering.” His business school professor remembers him saying that poor people are poor because they are lazy. This from a man who was born rich into one of America’s leading families and relied on those connections for everything he ever achieved.
He lectures on responsibility, saying that he’s going to end the era of “if it feels good do it” and yet he failed to live up to his responsibility as a young man in the crucible of his generation, the Vietnam war. In fact, if it felt good, he did it and did it with relish — for forty years of his fifty eight year life. He has never fully owned up to what he did during those years spent in excess and hedonism, relying on a convenient claim of being “born again” to expiate him of his sins. Would that everyone had it so easy.
He ostentatiously calls himself a committed Christian and yet he rarely attends church unless it’s a campaign stop or a national occasion. The man who claims that Christ is his favorite political philosopher famously and cruelly mocked a condemned prisoner begging for her life. He portrays himself as a man of rectitude yet he pumped his fist and said “feels good!” in the moment before he announced that the Iraq war had begun. (One would have thought that if there was ever a time to utter a prayer it was then.) How many funerals of the fallen has he attended? How many widows has he personally comforted?
He portrays himself as a salt of the earth “hard working” rancher, clearing brush on his land in an artfully sweaty Calvin Klein-style t-shirt. Yet in the first 8 months of his presidency leading up to 9/11, he spent 42% of his time on vacation. His “ranching” didn’t begin until he bought his million dollar property just before he ran for president in 1999. He has lived in suburbs and cities since a brief period in his childhood in the 50’s, when he lived in the medium sized boom town of Midland before going to Andover.
He actively promotes the notion that he is a man of action yet in the single most important moment of his life he froze in front of school kids, continuing on with a script prepared before the national psyche was blown to bits. He didn’t take charge. He didn’t react. He was paralyzed at the moment of the nation’s worst peril.
He claims to be a strong leader and yet he is skillfully manipulated by his staff, who learned early that the only thing they needed to do to convince him of the rightness of their recommended course was to flatter him by saying it was the “brave” or “bold” thing to do. His self-image as a resolute leader is actually a lack of self confidence that is ripe for exploitation by competing advisors who use it to convince this him to do their bidding. This explains why he seems to believe that he is acting with resolve when he has just affected an abrupt about-face. His advisors had persuaded him to change course simply by telling him he was being resolute.
George W. Bush is a man with two faces— a public image of manly strength and a private reality of childish weakness. His verbal miscues and malapropisms are the natural consequence of a man struggling with internal contradictions and a lack of self-knowledge. He can’t keep track of what he is supposed to think and say in public.
There is no doubt that whether it’s a cowboy hat or a crotch hugging flightsuit , George W. Bush enjoys wearing the mantle of American archetypal warriors. But when he goes behind the curtain and sheds the costume, a flinty, thin-skinned, immature man who has never taken responsibility for his mistakes emerges. The strong compassionate leader is revealed as a flimsy paper tiger.
On Thursday night, the president forgot himself. After years of being protected from anyone who doesn’t flatter and cajole, he let his mask slip when confronted with someone who didn’t fear his childish retribution or need anything from him. Many members of the public got a good sharp look at him for the first time in two years and they were stunned. Like that black and white image, the dichotomy of the real Bush vs. the phony Bush is profoundly discomfiting.
Luckily for America and the world, a fully synthesized, mature man stood on the other side of that stage ready to assume the mantle of leadership, not as a theatrical costume but as an adult responsibility for which he is prepared by a lifetime of service, study and dedication. I would imagine that many voters felt a strong sense of relief that he was there.
