master debators
what a great debate...
...but it was hard work
The entire time I was thinking to myself... how can anybody think the guy on the right is the better man to be president of the United States. It's sad how being informed, articulate, and eloquent are weaknesses in today's political arena, and they are supposedly qualities that distance the candidate from the "average american" and make him arrogant. I thought W came across as arrogant and annoyed, but that's just me.
points that annoyed me:
1) kyoto protocol was not discussed more, but at least Kerry mentioned it.
2) I thought it was a very bad decision for the U.S. not to be part of the world court that Bush was talking about. So I thought how it was funny how he brought that up as a good decision when really it is (I think) a perfect example of what is wrong with his policy.
3) ...it was hard work
4) the buzzer never went off. I was promised a buzzer if they candidates went over. I feel betrayed... Jim Leher (sp?) lied to me!
5) Poland get's no respect from the democrats... I mean, come on.
6) Kerry didn't address the whole "flip flopping" issue. He did indirectly, but should have just blatantly stated "You call me a flip flopper, but I have said the entire time saddam was a threat, but we shouldn't have dealt with him the way we did, but now that the damage is done I can fix it." I mean, he did say that, but he should have prefaced it with "here is the response to the flip flopping" or something like that... and he should have said it directly following Bush calling him indecisive.
But man, what a great public speaker. Kerry was clear and concise. He actually answered the questions and gave facts to back up his points. I like that much more than "I know it is right in my hear of hearts." What the fuck is that? That is not what a president should be saying in a debate. Then again, I am all secular and think the president should back up plolicy with fact and logic and not theology... but that's just me. And I thought it was funny when Fox was making a big deal that the president called Kerry on forgetting Poland as a major ally. Yup, the US had all those allies going in... the UK, and ... uh... and Poland... contributing a few hundred troops or whatever. I thought it was much more significant when Bush said we invaded Iraq because "they attacked us." That was very telling. Although it is smart. Because he came back and said... "well, I know Saddam didn't actually attack us" but that's the sound bite that people in middle america keep hearing and enough of them believe it. I'm glad Kerry called him on it right away. But it's smart for the Bush campaign to keep saying it, because they can say "well, you konw we know that Saddam didn't actually attack us" and they can play it off, but at the same time, if they keep saying it, enough people will believe it. There are people out there that just lump Iraq and Saddam and Osama and the rebels in Chechnya and North Korea as "terror." The terror on which we have declared war.
I had another point I wanted to make but I forgot what it was after going off on that tangent. Alright, I'm expecting some sort of argument... but it doesn't matter because there is nothing to argue. You can throw facts at all of these issues and find enough publications or websites or whatever to support or dicredit any point either of the two made tonight. What it boils down to is I don't believe or trust the current administration. I feel that the man on the left was better than the man on the right in the debate tonight. I don't trust an administration that supports policy that is counterintuitive, or says things that are complete bullshit about it... Things like the Haliburton issue, or the policy of opening up the national forests for logging to prevent forest fires (which all ecologists know is completely counterintuitive and bullshit), and opening ANWR to oil drilling when it is totally not worth the cost for the minimal amount of oil (I think it's like a months worth for the country), or not joining the international court because the U.S. shouldn't be held accountable in an international court for our foreign policy (I mean how hypocritical is that), or not signing the Kyoto Protocol... which is a whole other journal entry in itself, which if you want to argue global change and policy on that I'll be more than happy to... and I could go on. These things are important to me. Global issues. I know that the Kerry won't fix all of the issues, but his positions are way more in line with mine.
...but it was hard work
The entire time I was thinking to myself... how can anybody think the guy on the right is the better man to be president of the United States. It's sad how being informed, articulate, and eloquent are weaknesses in today's political arena, and they are supposedly qualities that distance the candidate from the "average american" and make him arrogant. I thought W came across as arrogant and annoyed, but that's just me.
points that annoyed me:
1) kyoto protocol was not discussed more, but at least Kerry mentioned it.
2) I thought it was a very bad decision for the U.S. not to be part of the world court that Bush was talking about. So I thought how it was funny how he brought that up as a good decision when really it is (I think) a perfect example of what is wrong with his policy.
3) ...it was hard work
4) the buzzer never went off. I was promised a buzzer if they candidates went over. I feel betrayed... Jim Leher (sp?) lied to me!
5) Poland get's no respect from the democrats... I mean, come on.
6) Kerry didn't address the whole "flip flopping" issue. He did indirectly, but should have just blatantly stated "You call me a flip flopper, but I have said the entire time saddam was a threat, but we shouldn't have dealt with him the way we did, but now that the damage is done I can fix it." I mean, he did say that, but he should have prefaced it with "here is the response to the flip flopping" or something like that... and he should have said it directly following Bush calling him indecisive.
But man, what a great public speaker. Kerry was clear and concise. He actually answered the questions and gave facts to back up his points. I like that much more than "I know it is right in my hear of hearts." What the fuck is that? That is not what a president should be saying in a debate. Then again, I am all secular and think the president should back up plolicy with fact and logic and not theology... but that's just me. And I thought it was funny when Fox was making a big deal that the president called Kerry on forgetting Poland as a major ally. Yup, the US had all those allies going in... the UK, and ... uh... and Poland... contributing a few hundred troops or whatever. I thought it was much more significant when Bush said we invaded Iraq because "they attacked us." That was very telling. Although it is smart. Because he came back and said... "well, I know Saddam didn't actually attack us" but that's the sound bite that people in middle america keep hearing and enough of them believe it. I'm glad Kerry called him on it right away. But it's smart for the Bush campaign to keep saying it, because they can say "well, you konw we know that Saddam didn't actually attack us" and they can play it off, but at the same time, if they keep saying it, enough people will believe it. There are people out there that just lump Iraq and Saddam and Osama and the rebels in Chechnya and North Korea as "terror." The terror on which we have declared war.
I had another point I wanted to make but I forgot what it was after going off on that tangent. Alright, I'm expecting some sort of argument... but it doesn't matter because there is nothing to argue. You can throw facts at all of these issues and find enough publications or websites or whatever to support or dicredit any point either of the two made tonight. What it boils down to is I don't believe or trust the current administration. I feel that the man on the left was better than the man on the right in the debate tonight. I don't trust an administration that supports policy that is counterintuitive, or says things that are complete bullshit about it... Things like the Haliburton issue, or the policy of opening up the national forests for logging to prevent forest fires (which all ecologists know is completely counterintuitive and bullshit), and opening ANWR to oil drilling when it is totally not worth the cost for the minimal amount of oil (I think it's like a months worth for the country), or not joining the international court because the U.S. shouldn't be held accountable in an international court for our foreign policy (I mean how hypocritical is that), or not signing the Kyoto Protocol... which is a whole other journal entry in itself, which if you want to argue global change and policy on that I'll be more than happy to... and I could go on. These things are important to me. Global issues. I know that the Kerry won't fix all of the issues, but his positions are way more in line with mine.