RSSPhew.
Sep 30
I heaved a big sigh of relief tonight. Kerry clearly won the debate, but more important was the fact that for the first time I can actually say I like him. I don’t “love” him, as he’s not near liberal enough for me, but that’s a big change from earlier.
Bush wasn’t near as bad as my expectations were, and I’m trying to be objective, but he really was pretty bad. Not just in debating skills, but in demeanor, uncertainty during certain parts, and just seeming flustered and frustrated. I can objectively say my opinion of any candidate, even one I liked, would diminish if they performed like that.
Kerry was calm, cool, collected, decisive, and took a clear stand on issues that I haven’t been certain of yet. Although to be honest I haven’t paid too close attention to the platforms since I can’t vote here. It is true that I’ve made up my mind already, but even if Bush were to come out and say everything in line with my own beliefs right now I’d know he was lying since there’s 4 years of proof to the opposite. So I don’t feel too bad about not knowing the finer details.
Oct 01, 2004 @ 07:23:04
There’s no real consensus on the argument that “Kerry clearly won the debate”. Kerry supporters, predictably, feel that Kerry won the debate, and Bush supporters, also predictably, feel that Bush won the debate. The Iowa Elections Market have both candidates shares up in value this morning – http://128.255.244.60/graphs/graph_Pres04_WTA.cfm
Oct 01, 2004 @ 08:42:34
As far as grading the debate itself goes, I think both sides had their pluses and minuses.
Kerry’s biggest plus is that he won on style, and that’s more than a superficial victory. He came across as likeable, in stark contrast to the unlikeable and robotic demeanor he usually exudes. I think this will help Kerry a lot, since opinion polls have shown Kerry to be lagging in the likeability department.
Kerry’s biggest minus is that he had some unbelivably bad substance gaffes. Most of these may not have hurt Kerry right away, but he was just providing sound bites for the SBVFT and other Bush 527s to use in their Kerry attack ads. The worst of these has got to be Kerry saying that the U.S. must pass the “Global Test” if it is to engage in pre-emptive action in the interest of self preservation. Kerry may have shored up the hard-left vote with that statement, but that asserting that the U.S. has to defer to the UN, or to pretty much anyone, in the interests of its own self protection will play poorly among the mushy middle.
Bush’s biggest plus from the debates is that he maintained the traits which give him his likeability, and he nailed Kerry the few times that he stumbled. I thought Bush’s single highlight of the night, on this point, was when he asked Kerry how he thought the troops would have any faith in him to lead when he think the mission is the “Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place”. I don’t think I’d be too motivated to do my job if Joe said that my project is the “wrong project, wrong time, wrong place”, but he’s going to lead us anyways. And I’m not even putting my life on the line.
Bush’s biggest minus, of course, is the fact that he’s the utterly worst public speaker to grace the office. True, he wins a few points for looking into the camera a lot when Kerry did barely, if at all. Bush has a hard time with oration. Of course, even Bush supporters have known this for years, but putting him next to someone who speaks well really drove home that point. I don’t remember him speaking this poorly in the 2000 debates, so I really have a hard time understanding how his oration has actually gotten WORSE over time.
All in all, I think it’ll be a few days before a winner can actually be declared. There were a few quick-response polls last night showing that respondents felt that Kerry won the debate, but whether or not he’s put a dent in Bush’s overall lead in swing state polls will determine the real winner.
Oct 01, 2004 @ 09:41:09
There was a lot of discussion in recent days about the restrictive format of the debate being negotiated by the parties. Each candidate seemed to think it was more important how they reacted to their opponents words than what they said themselves.
John Kerry scribbled furiously on his notes while Bush spoke, and would make a point of bringing the debate back to that subject at the next opportunity, as would befit a Yale debate team captain.
Bush smirked, grimaced and fidgeted during Kerry’s turn. Once the camera caught sight of his foot doing a nervous dance behind the podium. He had rehearsed well, but you could see his frustration when faced with genuine improvisation.
So what does that prove? That Kerry is a little sharper than Bush? I think we all expected that. It doesn’t come as a surprise. The real surprise to come out of this is that Kerry wasn’t just putting on aires, he really did have clear opinions and clear alternatives to each of his opponent’s opinions. Bush repeated all of the Administration’s talking points, as if having memorized his own press releases, but had difficulty backing them up.
I’m still a little unclear on exactly what Kerry’s plan for Iraq his, although he assures us he has one. But I agree with his frequently stated point that any plan for Iraq would have fresh credibility with a new president proposing it.
I’m eager for the next debate.
Oct 01, 2004 @ 12:08:31
As a ‘skilled debator’ in high school and college, I know that it’s significantly about style versus substance. The polished, articulate debator will ‘win’ almost every time or be granted victory as a result of minor technicalities. In fact, one time, I won a debate, not because I had better information, not because my arguments were more robust, but because I defined the terms of the debate, my opponent didn’t, therefore the manner in which he used the terms without the benefit of his definition and the judge relying on my own, basically made his arguments nonsensical. But, I knew what he meant and his arguments were excellent. I won on a technicality. If (and loosely if) Kerry ‘won’ it was on a technicality — technically John Kerry is a better public speaker…he is polished and quick with answers. Which concerns me. I think that very trait is where Kerry meets his waterloo, he’s so excited to rebut with an idea, he forgets that he took a different position on that idea minutes ago. For example — Kerry said he met with people (in swing states) who were buying equipment for their children off the internet…and he said ‘help is on the way!’ It’s hard to send those kiddos new equipment and help them out when you voted AGAINST the 87 billion dollars in aid…of course that was after you voted for it. So, was it a good idea? or a bad idea? Do they need help or do they not? Frankly, I have no idea. I’m not in the military and I don’t have any concept of what is going on over there…but I guess I’d just like an idea of what John Kerry thinks is a good idea. Hell, I might even vote for him but I just have no idea what the man believes and until I can figure out where he stands I can’t really figure out where I stand on him. At the very least I KNOW where Bush stands. Oh wait, I do know where Kerry stands on world issues…or do I? Let’s see, he wants a Global Test, in other words, he wants us to get permission before we do anything in the world — fascinating. Know anything about the U.N. and international law? Domestic law supersedes international law so now we are essentially rewriting the premises behind the U.N. and make international law supersede our law. But then, he flipped again, and said there’s no reason to use other global entities to help in non-proliferation talks with Korea…we only need the U.S. So does he want the world involved in our diplomacy or not? I’m sorry I guess I’m just confused. I know Bush isn’t exactly the most extraordinary public speaker…because he pauses before he opens his mouth. But maybe that’s a good thing. If Kerry would just take a second to think before he speaks he might just be consistent.
Oct 01, 2004 @ 13:32:14
Come on, Sarah. Don’t fall for the news networks spin that easily.
What he said about a “Global Test” has nothing to do with “getting permission” as you said, and he was very clear on that. He was clear that this is the same kind of test that people use to check whether an action they are about to take is moral or not. It’s a set of criteria that you use because the benefit has to be weighed against any possible repurcusions of that action. ie: If I kill someone who is stealing money from me, I may go to jail for 25 years. That’s probably not a good tradeoff, so I need to find a better way to solve the problem.
Similarly in foreign policy you need to look at:
- Will this action make other countries mad?
- If so, what are the repurcusions? Will other countries want to invade us? Will other countries want to sanction us? etc.
- Will other countries feel threatened and respond by strengthening their alliances against us?
None of these questions take away the ultimate authority to take the action. They are in fact asked to ensure the country in question is getting the most possible benefit from any situation.
I can’t grasp why the conservatives are making this so black and white (well I do, it’s for the spin) For instance, why isn’t the US invading North Korea right now? By Bushs current doctrine he should have invaded years ago. However, he obviously thinks it’s more advantageous to not do so at this point. Whether it’s for (domestic) political reasons, world opinion, stretching the military too far, etc, there is still some driving factor. It did not pass his “Global Test”
Also, I thought Kerrys point about the trust the US had during the Cuban Missile Crisis was great, and he was absolutely right. No other country, not even Britain or Poland (who recently said they were duped), would trust Bush on any kind of foriegn policy issue.
Oct 02, 2004 @ 09:01:31
Actually, I didn’t watch the network commentary after the debate, the Global Test was a conclusion I drew on my own. No other country asks other countries for a ‘moral’ check. They do what they want, when they want. Switzerland isn’t even a member of the EU even though they are surrounded by EU members.
I’m sorry but I just don’t think we should have any sort of Global Test on anyone…I don’t really trust the morals or ethics of many countries so I certainly don’t feel like my country should have to get a go-ahead on our foreign policy issues. And then which countries do we choose? The UN Security council? Do we look to China for our heads up? With their ABOMINABLE record on genocide? Or maybe France, who says that Iraqi insurgents are their allies http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/29325.htm — Sorry but anyone who is for the people killing our men is not a country whose opinion I want on my international relations issues.
I see things other countries are doing and I completely disagree with them, therefore, I’m not going to use them as a policy barometer on my international policy matters. Especially since I’m paying for the priviledge of them even having a seat in the United Nations. The thing is, I agree with you, we should be in North Korea…no question. It should have been first but we all relied on sketchy intelligence and went into Iraq. N. Korea scares me as much as Iraq…and now Taiwan is becoming more vitriolic in their relations with China…more so than before. I’m not saying Bush is right, I’m just saying I want to know where Kerry stands, and the only thing I saw him take a stand on was a global test, and I do NOT want a global test on any measure in relation to my country’s policy. We start getting into very dangerous territory when we lose our autonomy.
Keep in mind too, that Germany, France, England, Portugal, Italy, Russia etc. ALLL for THOUSANDS of years invaded countries for their own gain and personal expansion. We are not taking over Iraq — our foreign policy is not invasion and accession it’s been enforecement and protection.
Re: Charles De Gaulle and Kennedy — the reason De Gaulle said that was because we pulled France’s ass out of the fire in World War II. If the U.S. hadn’t stepped in, all of France would be speaking German right now as they didn’t even put up a fight, and I’m glad — they preserved one of the most beautiful cities in the world. But in the sixties it was only just over a decade after the war and all the allies were still basking in the glow of victory and De Gaulle was a good friend to the United States, since we pretty much made him a hero and he never forgot that. Memories of U.S. Aid are oft forgotten and we will, always, remain the evil empire no matter what.
Oct 02, 2004 @ 14:07:12
Sarah, I have not forgotten what the US helped do in WW2, but your comment about always being the “evil empire” disturbs me. Unfortunately I realize most of the public has this delusion of “we’re only trying to help other people, why do they all hate us?” This scares me because it reinforces a belief that is a) totally unfounded and b) breeds a hatred and feeling of superiority over the other peoples of the world.
Having studied history in depth you should know as well as anyone that the US does not always wield it’s power benevolantly. How many governments has the US secretly helped to overthrow in order to get a US-friendly dictator installed? South America and the Middle East ring a big bell here. And how many of those situations have gone drastically wrong, including the current one in Iraq?
So whether or not any current efforts around the world are benevolant in nature, people in the US need to understand that this reputation has been built over the last 50 years. It is going to take a long, long time to get rid of it, assuming efforts are made in that direction. Probably another 50 years at least if it was started today. And unfortunately the war in Iraq does not help this at all, as shown by increased levels of anti-Americanism around the world. It just doesn’t look very good, whether or not it had good intentions. This is mostly because of all the lies and transparent reasonings going into the war. To be honest, if Bush had stood up 2 years ago and said “I’m going to do what my predecesors wouldn’t do – overthrow this man who has not responded to 16 UN resolutions, etc, etc.” rather than “He’s got WMDs pointed at us… and by the way there’s also these UN resolutions…” I would bet many more people around the world would have been at least neutral to the action, rather than violently against it. PR is crucially important on the world stage right now.
I’ve heard you say something along the lines of “I’m sick of the US getting blasted for doing something, or not doing something. We can’t win either way.” Well, I’m sorry, but the US can’t “have their cake and eat it too.” You can’t go around mucking with other countries governments for their own gains and then expect the rest of the world to be excited when you go invading another one.
Oct 02, 2004 @ 17:41:09
Neil — the thing is all countries are trying to get leaders installed who are in line with their philosophies, it began in Greece with the advent of diplomacy. The need for diplomats arose so that they could go explain the policies of their country and possibly reach a mutually beneficial decision (you help us get Caesar out and our guy will help you get more money). We are ALL out for ourselves…every country. No one forms a country for the sole purpose of helping their fellow man. If anything, the United States was closest to that, in that it was at the very least a refuge for the persecuted but it still took several wars to form this country (thus defeating the purpose of a safe haven).
I guess I should have been more clear, in that I know full well we are scratching our own backs when we help other countries. When I heard that talk radio had come to Iraq (a place where public opinion resulted in certain death before) that made me proud….when I heard that 35 childer were senselessly murdered, almost certainly because we were there, that made me angry. Please keep in mind this is not black and white for me…I’m not behind this war — I am extremely torn. I think maybe it will have a good outcome at some point but I’m not entirely sure the cost was worth it.
As to weilding our power benevolently — I remember wanting to be a spy when I was a little girl, and then I started reading about the atrocities that the CIA perpetrated in other countries, and the shocking way our country would disavow spies to rot in prisons for decades so as not to lose face diplomatically and that ended my romaticism with being a spy. So believe me, there are many many dark and horrendous skeletons in our closet but no more so than any other country. And while I realize we should be ‘above the rest’ in that sense, I just don’t want to be targeted as being ‘worse than the rest/evil’ especially since on so many fronts we do try to be the first ones on the scene when tragedies happen in other countries…long before many other countries.
And actually right now, I’m just pissed, because no one, is doing anything about the Sudan…not one person is lifting a finger. Not my country, not yours, not Europe, not the Middle East, and not really Africa…and I want to know why not? We learned our lesson the hard way with Rwanda,what on earth (literally) does it take to get this issue to be on the forefront of people’s minds? I guess not in an election year….
Oct 04, 2004 @ 13:13:05
Neil, you rock and I like a lot of the things you write about here. One small critique from the language geek – “This sites mission” needs to read “This site’s mission” or “This sites’ mission” (depending on your geographical origin). Keep rocking in the free world, as long as it’s still free.