WARNING: POLITICS AHEAD
I know I am potentially alienating some people by doing this, but I live in D.C., work in D.C., and am getting my master's degree in political communication in D.C., so it would be a failure on my part to not talk about politics. As I said, it may be stupid to do this, especially right before posting a new Breadbox Edition, but the debate was important, and I want to talk about it. And unfortunately for you, the person I usually talk politics with is in another country right now. So...
IF YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS, OR ARE EASILY OFFENDED BY LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO VIEWPOINTS, READ NO FURTHER. Thank you, and sorry for the caps lock:
Actually, that warning is kind of overkill for this particular post. I'm actually not going to espousing my usual liberal, elitest crap this time, and some of this is actually political humor. Let's start with that, actually.
THE DEBATE
The debate in short hand:
KERRY: Alliances.
BUSH: Consistency.
Stupid gaffs of the debate:
KERRY: "I have always been in favor of [nuclear] proliferation." (This is paraphrased as gaffs are edited out of transcripts)
BUSH: *mistakes Osama bin Laden for Saddam Hussein.* (also edited out of transcripts)
Canidates' other problems:
KERRY: *unnecessarily big words*
BUSH: *unnecessarily long pauses*
Cringe-worthy responses to opponent's accusations:
KERRY: "I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life."
BUSH: "First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that."
The "Oh, he walked into that" moments (with the jist of opponent's response):
KERRY: "Help is on the way."
BUSH: And how do you do that if you don't believe the war is winnable?
BUSH: "The enemy attacked us."
KERRY: Yeah, Osama bin Laden. Who has what to do with Iraq?
Surreal moments:
BUSH AND KERRY briefly exchange parenting tips.
KERRY smirks and laughs inappropriately while BUSH criticizes him on something concrete.
BUSH repeatedly insists on the importance of Poland in the Iraqi coalition.
KERRY uses every word but "lie," and seems offended when moderator Jim Lehrer implies Kerry wants people to think it.
BUSH calls Russian President Vladimir Putin by his first name multiple times and it sounds really awkward.
And now for my real feelings on the debate:
Because I support Kerry, it seems obvious that I will claim he won the debate. Which I am going to. Here is why, however:
First of all, everyone thought the timed format was going to bring Kerry down. Kerry is known as long-winded and circuitous, and such a style would cause him to run over on the two minute time limit. However, Kerry showed unusual poise and curtness when making his points. His little red light (signaling that time was up) never blinked. He was calm and collected (though his hands were shaking when he made his hand gestures). His answers were direct and evenly stated.
This is opposed to President Bush, who was always willing to jump to a 30 second response, but wasted five of his seconds stuttering to get his answer out. He let Kerry annoy him, and it showed on his face. He paused continually, not just at the end of sentences to form his next thought (still not the best public speaking, but forgivable), but in the middle of sentences or even phrases. Of course, the president has never been known as an accomplished public speaker, and all of this is style anyway. Substance is what's important.
In this realm, the speakers were a little more equal. Bush continued to push the belief that Kerry is a flip-flopper (the word was never used), and Kerry attempted to dispell that idea. It will not be clear until later if that worked. It may have worked, because Kerry did formulate his consistent policy on Iraq clearly: He agreed Saddam was a threat with WMDs. He believed Saddam had WMDs because the president said so. He voted for the use of force because he believed the president would exhaust every available resourse (diplomacy, UN, etc.) before going to war. Now, he does not believe those resources were exhausted, but he still believes Saddam was a threat.
However, Bush has the advantage on this topic because most people believe Kerry is inconsistent and Kerry has never tried to really clear that up until now. Bush has the past on his side, and during the debate he continually tried to make Kerry look inconsistent. Bush's repetition will work to his advantage.
On Kerry's side, I have always been against the war (hey, I protested on Oxford Street once), and I do believe that the change of motive from WMDs to "getting rid of bad dictator" is misleading, because, um, Sudan. Genocide, bad dictator, actual known harborer of al Qaeda, and did I mention genocide? If we were really out to get rid of the EBIL BAD MEN of the world, Iraq was not the place to start. But enough of my liberal propaganda. I don't really want to have this argument.
On Bush's side (yes, I do have nice things to say about him), I have to agree that Kerry's way of talking about the Iraqi Governing Council is not helping. Because, whoever wins in November will have to deal with the Iraqi Council, and implying they have no power will not make the transition any easier. Also, kudos to Bush for being strong on Putin and his treatment of political opponents. We have to remember they're our friends, but we can't just let the leaders do as they please.
Okay, now the second political thing I want to talk about is the LaRouche PAC. If you've never heard of him, LaRouche has been trying to run for president as a Democrat since about 1974. Obviously, he has never made it. Probably because he's a nutcase. His latest piece is called: "The Number One Issue in the Presidential Debates is George W. Bush's Mental Illness." He then goes on to describe how crazy Bush is, ascribing to him ADHD, an omnipotence complex, alcoholism (albeit dry alcoholism), sadism, a mild form of Tourette's, and an Oedipal Complex. Completely unsupported by hard data.
To Mr. LaRouche, I say this:
STOP BEING ON MY SIDE! YOU MAKE MY SIDE LOOK STUPID!
If you have managed to read all this, I am very proud of you.
IF YOU DO NOT CARE ABOUT AMERICAN POLITICS, OR ARE EASILY OFFENDED BY LIBERAL COMMIE PINKO VIEWPOINTS, READ NO FURTHER. Thank you, and sorry for the caps lock:
Actually, that warning is kind of overkill for this particular post. I'm actually not going to espousing my usual liberal, elitest crap this time, and some of this is actually political humor. Let's start with that, actually.
THE DEBATE
The debate in short hand:
KERRY: Alliances.
BUSH: Consistency.
Stupid gaffs of the debate:
KERRY: "I have always been in favor of [nuclear] proliferation." (This is paraphrased as gaffs are edited out of transcripts)
BUSH: *mistakes Osama bin Laden for Saddam Hussein.* (also edited out of transcripts)
Canidates' other problems:
KERRY: *unnecessarily big words*
BUSH: *unnecessarily long pauses*
Cringe-worthy responses to opponent's accusations:
KERRY: "I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life."
BUSH: "First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that."
The "Oh, he walked into that" moments (with the jist of opponent's response):
KERRY: "Help is on the way."
BUSH: And how do you do that if you don't believe the war is winnable?
BUSH: "The enemy attacked us."
KERRY: Yeah, Osama bin Laden. Who has what to do with Iraq?
Surreal moments:
BUSH AND KERRY briefly exchange parenting tips.
KERRY smirks and laughs inappropriately while BUSH criticizes him on something concrete.
BUSH repeatedly insists on the importance of Poland in the Iraqi coalition.
KERRY uses every word but "lie," and seems offended when moderator Jim Lehrer implies Kerry wants people to think it.
BUSH calls Russian President Vladimir Putin by his first name multiple times and it sounds really awkward.
And now for my real feelings on the debate:
Because I support Kerry, it seems obvious that I will claim he won the debate. Which I am going to. Here is why, however:
First of all, everyone thought the timed format was going to bring Kerry down. Kerry is known as long-winded and circuitous, and such a style would cause him to run over on the two minute time limit. However, Kerry showed unusual poise and curtness when making his points. His little red light (signaling that time was up) never blinked. He was calm and collected (though his hands were shaking when he made his hand gestures). His answers were direct and evenly stated.
This is opposed to President Bush, who was always willing to jump to a 30 second response, but wasted five of his seconds stuttering to get his answer out. He let Kerry annoy him, and it showed on his face. He paused continually, not just at the end of sentences to form his next thought (still not the best public speaking, but forgivable), but in the middle of sentences or even phrases. Of course, the president has never been known as an accomplished public speaker, and all of this is style anyway. Substance is what's important.
In this realm, the speakers were a little more equal. Bush continued to push the belief that Kerry is a flip-flopper (the word was never used), and Kerry attempted to dispell that idea. It will not be clear until later if that worked. It may have worked, because Kerry did formulate his consistent policy on Iraq clearly: He agreed Saddam was a threat with WMDs. He believed Saddam had WMDs because the president said so. He voted for the use of force because he believed the president would exhaust every available resourse (diplomacy, UN, etc.) before going to war. Now, he does not believe those resources were exhausted, but he still believes Saddam was a threat.
However, Bush has the advantage on this topic because most people believe Kerry is inconsistent and Kerry has never tried to really clear that up until now. Bush has the past on his side, and during the debate he continually tried to make Kerry look inconsistent. Bush's repetition will work to his advantage.
On Kerry's side, I have always been against the war (hey, I protested on Oxford Street once), and I do believe that the change of motive from WMDs to "getting rid of bad dictator" is misleading, because, um, Sudan. Genocide, bad dictator, actual known harborer of al Qaeda, and did I mention genocide? If we were really out to get rid of the EBIL BAD MEN of the world, Iraq was not the place to start. But enough of my liberal propaganda. I don't really want to have this argument.
On Bush's side (yes, I do have nice things to say about him), I have to agree that Kerry's way of talking about the Iraqi Governing Council is not helping. Because, whoever wins in November will have to deal with the Iraqi Council, and implying they have no power will not make the transition any easier. Also, kudos to Bush for being strong on Putin and his treatment of political opponents. We have to remember they're our friends, but we can't just let the leaders do as they please.
Okay, now the second political thing I want to talk about is the LaRouche PAC. If you've never heard of him, LaRouche has been trying to run for president as a Democrat since about 1974. Obviously, he has never made it. Probably because he's a nutcase. His latest piece is called: "The Number One Issue in the Presidential Debates is George W. Bush's Mental Illness." He then goes on to describe how crazy Bush is, ascribing to him ADHD, an omnipotence complex, alcoholism (albeit dry alcoholism), sadism, a mild form of Tourette's, and an Oedipal Complex. Completely unsupported by hard data.
To Mr. LaRouche, I say this:
STOP BEING ON MY SIDE! YOU MAKE MY SIDE LOOK STUPID!
If you have managed to read all this, I am very proud of you.