Ten minutes to write. Less time to read.

I’ve reviewed my notes regarding the recent political debate between incumbent Bush and challenger Kerry. I’ve also listened to a variety of talking heads regarding who was the winner on that evening. And tonight, as I fill the time between dinner and the start of the vice-presidential candidates’ debate, I’m going on record as noting that both presidential candidates have barnacles attached to their messages.

This probably isn’t an issue that will decide the upcoming election, but it is an issue that is dear to my heart. So I choose to belabor the point, in the hope of encouraging others to evaluate if speaking correctly should be a presidential criterion. (This is different from speaking well.)

Either or both candidates used the following phrases: “track down,” “hunt down,” cut off aid,” “hike up,” and “meet up with.” I’m also pretty positive that each candidate used barnacles that I didn’t catch in my barnacle net, which means their errors exceed my reportage of them.

In my humble opinion, both candidates should be chastised for adding ‘down’, ‘off’, and ‘up’ to their answers. It’s also my humble opinion that these gaffes are not on the same par with committing soldiers or vetoing bills, but they do suggest a certain lack of understanding.

So, if someone is sitting on the political fence when November 2 rolls around and that person needs a tie-breaker, what would be wrong with making it about which candidate uses more barnacles than the other?