First US Debate...
Sep. 30th, 2004 11:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
strredwolfOkay, first debate. International issues. The players w/background in relation:
Senator John Kerry, who went to Vietnam, and saw first hand. His record is more solid (minimal questions, mostly of *after* his service)
President Bush, who's pre-elected military experience was in the Texas National Guard, in a position that would let him "escape" Vietnam. He was never activated and sent. He has gaps in his record, and recently in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit his resignation letter turned up. His background is questionable.
About an hour into the debates, I started tuning out. Bush admitted the mission wasn't over, and dodged many allegations Kerry presented by using canned results. Kerry had to respond to the canned messages, correcting Bush over and over again. Even the press knows better than Bush! NBC ran a fact-checking report right after the debate and they got better figures from Iraq's prime minister! Bush is ignoring Kerry... and it's looking like everyone else.
Bush's presentation sputtered, pausing, almost refilling a buffer with new words every five or six seconds if it wasn't canned. Kerry never waivered, his Senate debate experience working to his advantage.
I do belive Kerry is more solid in his plans, but he continues to be defensive. He needs to LART Bush that he's not going to respond to the repeated canned claims. He needs a zinger...
Noone really won it. Bush held his platform of repeating history. Kerry defined more, cementing his platform.
Senator John Kerry, who went to Vietnam, and saw first hand. His record is more solid (minimal questions, mostly of *after* his service)
President Bush, who's pre-elected military experience was in the Texas National Guard, in a position that would let him "escape" Vietnam. He was never activated and sent. He has gaps in his record, and recently in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit his resignation letter turned up. His background is questionable.
About an hour into the debates, I started tuning out. Bush admitted the mission wasn't over, and dodged many allegations Kerry presented by using canned results. Kerry had to respond to the canned messages, correcting Bush over and over again. Even the press knows better than Bush! NBC ran a fact-checking report right after the debate and they got better figures from Iraq's prime minister! Bush is ignoring Kerry... and it's looking like everyone else.
Bush's presentation sputtered, pausing, almost refilling a buffer with new words every five or six seconds if it wasn't canned. Kerry never waivered, his Senate debate experience working to his advantage.
I do belive Kerry is more solid in his plans, but he continues to be defensive. He needs to LART Bush that he's not going to respond to the repeated canned claims. He needs a zinger...
Noone really won it. Bush held his platform of repeating history. Kerry defined more, cementing his platform.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-30 09:34 pm (UTC)The biggest difference between their foreign policy is that Senator Kerry wants America to be a Role Model in the UN and work with the International Politics a little more, whereas President Bush doesn't want the International Community controlling the US's actions or otherwise giving up the US's autonomy over to foreign countries.
Both have a certain validity. Unfortunately, President Bush's stubborness seemed to eminate from the podium, as he has a "clear, unwavering view of what must happen." Unfortunately, what that means is, and Kerry tried to call him on this, is that President Bush doesn't alter his course to incorporate new information that has been revealed.
And that's my Debate in a nutshell, trying to be as objective as possible (though you can still tell my bias towards Kerry colors my judgement of Bush).
I was, however, surprised that Senator Kerry said, in no uncertain words, that he will discontinue any research of new US Nuclear weapons. This is a bold change of any president since the invention of a Nuclear arsenal, and a definite push away from the old cold war era mentality.
Atomic bunker busters
Date: 2004-10-01 06:16 pm (UTC)We shouldn't be making those things but... why dosen't it supprise me we are?
When you combind this with the attack in Kerry reguarding his tendency to vote against military wepons you can't say he won't hold up this political prommis.
You could say this "passes the international test" ok that's the other line that will go down in history.
The best and worst lines from the same guy.
PS I think Bush went nowhere in this debate and I'm pro Bush.
Diffrent opinion
Date: 2004-10-01 06:08 pm (UTC)Bush didn't ignore Kerry. He didn't question Kerry becouse the rules don't permit it.
Kerry has explained what Bush supporters believe to be waffling. However it's an imperfict explenation that only works if you suspend disbelief.
Bush has not provided a satisfactory explenation for his actions whom like Kerry requires the "I want to believe" addatude. It's not soild enough to change minds.
Nither Bush nore Kerry has made it clear that they have an exit plan, or any plans with reguard to the war, The ecconomy or anything.
A summery of Bush and Kerry is this:
"I have a better plan" and "Everyone knows where I stand"
Makes you want to say "What is your freaking plan?" to both.
In short the format wasn't really helpful.
What we established is that Kerry and Bush may very well go out to the bar the day after the election... loser buys the drinks.
As per military record:
Bushes military record has been savaged by a news story that has already been so horrably discredited as to be nothing more than political redrick.
Kerrys military record has not remained untouched as the Swift boat vets continue to rip into Kerry.
Vetnam Vets have a whole lot more validity than a document manufactered at a Kinkos.
But as both Kerry and Bush both admitted... It's your time in office. that matters.
On the aside I do feel compelled to indicate something nobody else seams willing to say.
Psst: Bush never actually fought during Vetnam.
THAT.. is what Kerry is talking about. The time he spent FIGHTING. However short. Bush was never shot at.
He is saying he's seen first hand the horrors of war.
In anycase I think the winner of this debate was the moderator who only wanted to make everyons positions clear and at one point had to struggle with both canidates just to get them to make what they think clear.
It was a lousy debate all around and I look forward to the town hall format.
I like this format myself. When I ran for office this is the format used for my one (and only) public debate.
I had a bunch of supporters after that but I think I basicly lost that debate. I also lost that election.
However I fell in love with the format.
Everyone is permitted to submit questions (Ahem poke poke.. Get snapping Red) and the moderators take the best of the bunch.
A friend of mine submitted a cool one in my debate. I didn't know she was there and she didn't know I was running. Untill the debate. She waylaied me after the debate and told me I gave the best answer to her question. I gave the only answer that wasn't a copy of the status que.
She asked about banning medical pot shops in the city limits. Everyone else was all for it I said it was an emotionally charged issue on both sides and very hard to say. I later called it "The perfict waffle" answer. But it's true. Nobody was thinking stright.
I didn't want to come right out and say what I thought "It won't stand up to the fedral corts so it's a waist of time".
Anywho.... Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-23 08:41 pm (UTC)http://www.comptia.org/pressroom/election_2004.aspx