With Whom Would You Rather Tiger Hunt?

[iamjoy]

the man who might hesitate to pull the trigger (John Kerry) or the man who wouldn't hesitate to kill the trigger but his aim sucks (Bush)?

Just taking something Thomas Friedman said about this election (he applied an old British political metaphor)

[stray cat]

1. Bush would run and I would be stuck alone with the tiger

Other people are the ones who fight Bush's battles.

[aquart]

2. Thomas Friedman remains an idiot.

The British no longer have their empire, btw. Not because they couldn't kill tigers, they killed lots of them, but because controlling huge segments of the world by military might is unwieldy and ineffective. The whole point of the military entrenchment was to secure trade preferences anyway, so why not cut out the gun-toting middleman and go straight to contract negotiation?

The tiger, like the wolf, is on the endangered species list, and I would prefer a president who wasn't so quick to eliminate what cannot be replaced, like the good will of allied nations.

[grace0418]

3. I don't think John Kerry would shoot a tiger at all

because tigers are endangered and he understands and values our environment. I would actually prefer he didn't hunt at all, but geese are certainly not endangered and since I'm not a vegetarian I won't be a hypocrite about it.

Now Bush on the other hand wouldn't hesitate to pull the trigger. Not only is his aim bad, but he's probably not even sure what a tiger looks like.

[Fovea]

4. I will go with the fellow who stands a better chance

of hitting the Tiger. All things considered, it's a slam dunk for Kerry. If he can drop a running man carrying a grenade launcher at distance, he can certainly drop a Tiger close up.

[CityHall]

5. Bush would shoot an elephant and insist it was a tiger

Hard to hunt tigers (terrorists) if you don't know what they look like, and are more interested in selling ivory (oil) than protecting people from danger.