As I noted in my last post regarding the second debate, Bush seemed to have trouble controlling the muscles around his eye lids. A pesky mosquito on Monday night awoke me at 4 am and urged me to turn on the TV to watch ABC's This Week. At the end of the program it showed an excerpt from the Late Show with David Letterman. In a span of less than 20 seconds during the third debate, the Bush Blink Counter registered about 30 blinks. Perhaps a call to the Guinness Book of World Records is in order.
The excessive blinking almost exclusively occurred while Mr. Kerry was levelling criticism at Bush and his administration. Blinking seems to be the way he deals with stress and is a physical manifestation of his discomfort.
Others, perhaps more cynical than me, have suggested that it is a form of Morse Code and George was signalling out SOS. However, there is a much more plausible explanation. After they were caught with the radio transmitter installed on George's back, Karl Rove and company needed another method of convincing the public that George could put together a couple of coherent sentences. A quick call down to the basement of the CIA gave Karl access to a top-secret optical transmission device that sends signals and imprints them directly on the retina with enough energy to short-circuit the brain and directly connect with the nerves controlling the vocal cords. Thus, without Bush's brain impeding the proceedings, he was able to make it through the debate looking only slightly simian. However, the side effect of transmitting information directly to the retina is excessive blinking. Perhaps some effectively applied Botox around the eyes would help calm this. Something to look into for next time.
On a slightly more serious note...
Perhaps it was due to the bright lights, exhaustion or just being George Bush, but the debates made me wonder if George is taking psychological medication. When he looked directly into the camera to answer what he had learned from the powerful women in his life, his eyes looked completely lifeless, his affect muted, and his response slow and unnatural. Certainly, few can match the polished persona of John Kerry, but there is something disconcerting in the mannerisms and conduct of George Bush. As I never paid much attention to US politics until recently, I cannot make comparisons but it would be interesting to study his facial movements and general affect over time to see if there has been any significant changes.
A quick serach of the internet shows many other people have questioned the mental health of the President. Furthermore, there have been rumours of erratic and "conduct unbecoming of a president" during his tenure. Perhaps, his aides are slipping some pills into his morning coffee?
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Surplus!!
During the last debate, the two candidates sparred over the ever growing US debt. Although I forget the exact figures, the yearly deficits were certainly in the hundreds of billions of dollars and growing the national debt at a staggering rate. Bush portrayed Kerry as a tax and spend liberal who will most certainly raise taxes. However, through the magic of debt financing, Bush can simultaneously cut taxes and increase spending.
North of the border, Canadian politicians are distraught over the surplus that has been generated this year. Admittedly, the paltry $8 billion dollars wouldn't cover the bill for Halliburton but it does demonstrate that the current economic conditions do not necessitate running huge budget deficits each year. Canadian politicians are up in arms that the surplus is greater than expected and the money must be spent at reducing the national debt rather than being spent on increasing the health care or other public programs.
But wait, isn't the war in Iraq a significant contributor to the deficit? Yes, it is but the US had the opportunity to reduce its costs if it had worked in concert with the United Nations rather than acting unilaterally in a "coalition of the willing". Canada, traditionally an ally of the United States simply because of its geographic proximity, opted out of joining the coalition but would have contributed some of its budget surplus to the cause if the UN felt the military action was justified.
Although Bush derided Kerry for ignoring the contributions of the coalition members during the debate, many of these "willing supporters" have in fact been bribed for their support. Turkey received $30 billion in aid while numerous other governments have been promised compensation for their rubber stamps. What is the net contribution the coalition members have made once the financial compensation and other promises are deducted? It would not surprise me that the coalition costs the US more than it contributes with the possible exception of the UK.
Veneer of a coalition isn't cheap.
North of the border, Canadian politicians are distraught over the surplus that has been generated this year. Admittedly, the paltry $8 billion dollars wouldn't cover the bill for Halliburton but it does demonstrate that the current economic conditions do not necessitate running huge budget deficits each year. Canadian politicians are up in arms that the surplus is greater than expected and the money must be spent at reducing the national debt rather than being spent on increasing the health care or other public programs.
But wait, isn't the war in Iraq a significant contributor to the deficit? Yes, it is but the US had the opportunity to reduce its costs if it had worked in concert with the United Nations rather than acting unilaterally in a "coalition of the willing". Canada, traditionally an ally of the United States simply because of its geographic proximity, opted out of joining the coalition but would have contributed some of its budget surplus to the cause if the UN felt the military action was justified.
Although Bush derided Kerry for ignoring the contributions of the coalition members during the debate, many of these "willing supporters" have in fact been bribed for their support. Turkey received $30 billion in aid while numerous other governments have been promised compensation for their rubber stamps. What is the net contribution the coalition members have made once the financial compensation and other promises are deducted? It would not surprise me that the coalition costs the US more than it contributes with the possible exception of the UK.
Veneer of a coalition isn't cheap.
Memories of Debates Past
During the late 80’s, I was a big fan of Saturday Night Live. Their political sketches in particular were a brilliant commentary of the times. I still vividly recall the debate between George H. Bush and Michael Dukakis. Dana Carey’s portrayal of George Sr. was uncanny and John Lubitz with his deadpan demeanor and bushy eyebrows proved to be a credible Governor Dukakis. As the men took their positions behind their respective podiums, Dukakis began to elevate accompanied by the sound of hydraulics. Unfortunately, he held the switch a little too long and instead of gaining the few inches he required to look his opponent in the eyes, he had acquired the height of an NBA star. Thus, more hydraulics were required to bring him down to the desired height.
As the debate progressed, George Bush repeatedly asked the moderator (Jan Hooks as Diane Sawyer) if his allotted time had expired. Inevitably, George Sr. still had considerable time remaining and was forced to continually repeat the mantra “Stay the course, a thousand points of light” while interlocking his fingers, a gesture his son mimicked at the end of the second debate. After watching the vice-president struggle and wax ineloquently, Mr. Dukakis looked into the camera, shrugged his shoulders and said, “I can’t believe I am losing to this guy.”
I am sure Mr. Kerry looks into the mirror every morning and says the same thing.
As the debate progressed, George Bush repeatedly asked the moderator (Jan Hooks as Diane Sawyer) if his allotted time had expired. Inevitably, George Sr. still had considerable time remaining and was forced to continually repeat the mantra “Stay the course, a thousand points of light” while interlocking his fingers, a gesture his son mimicked at the end of the second debate. After watching the vice-president struggle and wax ineloquently, Mr. Dukakis looked into the camera, shrugged his shoulders and said, “I can’t believe I am losing to this guy.”
I am sure Mr. Kerry looks into the mirror every morning and says the same thing.
Presidential Debate Part 2
A rainy Saturday afternoon provided me an opportunity to watch the second presidential debate in its entirety. It gave me a fuller appreciation of the time limitations, the nature of the questions asked and the way the two men conducted themselves over the full 90 minutes. Limiting myself to highlights, especially when coupled with “expert” commentary, certainly influences my opinion and I was grateful to have viewed the debate in its raw form.
What immediately struck me was how the candidates used the questions, no matter how specific, to launch into prepared rhetoric that either twisted the question grotesquely or avoided it all together. Both Kerry and Bush were guilty but the final question to George Bush still resonates in my mind. A member or the audience asked Mr. Bush to provide three examples of mistakes that he has made during his four years while president.
First, he made light of the fact that he makes thousands of decisions a day, some trivial, others of great significance. Then, in an attempt to obfuscate the question, he theorized that in the future, historians might judge some of his actions to be mistakes. However, Mr. Bush insisted that in his mind, all his decisions have been correct and he would not categorize any of them as mistakes.
Admitting a mistake is always a hard thing to do and one might postulate that for a president to do so would be political suicide especially when you purport yourself to be the all-seeing, all-knowing, never-wavering Commander-in-Chief and “leader of the free world”. However, with the recent revelations concerning the multiple failures in intelligence, the premature declaration of “Mission Accomplished”, the inability to capture America’s Number One enemy, Osama Bin Laden, and the lack of precautions taken prior to September 11th despite the warnings of an imminent terrorist attack, Bush certainly had many mistakes to choose from; yet, in his political mind, he had done everything correctly.
Could Bush have admitted to three mistakes and survived politically? That is a difficult question given how the media and competition would have jumped on a clip of Bush saying we made a mistake and replayed it ad naseum. It would have been particularly damning for Bush as he always portrays himself as a strong leader and someone who reduces issues to simple yes-and-no, black-and-white dichotomies.
In the debate, Bush hammered home this simplistic view of issues throughout the evening particularly when criticizing Kerry’s voting record in the Senate. Frequently, Bush would point to a vote in the Senate and deduce Kerry’s position from how he voted. For example, during the debate over abortion, President Bush criticized Kerry over not voting for the bill ending funding for partial birth abortions. Bills are not simple documents. They contain complex legalese and often deal with multiple, but related issues, at once. Thus, included in the partial-birth legislation were other anti-abortion-related articles that Mr. Kerry did not agree with. Thus, he voted no and he explained his reasoning in the debate. As Mr. Kerry spoke, Bush, rather than listening politely, turned to the audience, shrugged his shoulders, whispered the word “What?!” and shook his head in apparent mock of his opponents reply. Again, sophomoric debating techniques were on display.
During the debate on stem cell research, Bush made a remark that he does not believe in sacrificing the life of an unborn in an attempt to cure diseases that afflict the living. Thus, he endorsed a bill that severely limited embryonic stem cell research to the currently available stem cell lines. Although he may be against the “killing of the unborn”, Bush seems to have no qualms about sacrificing the living in his quest to rid the world of “evil” and deliver “freedom”. His sponsorship of the war on Iraq has murdered thousands of Iraqi children, women, and other innocent civilians, not to mention over 1000 young Americans. It seems severely hypocritical to prevent the killing of unborn embryos while simultaneously sanctioning the murder of the living.
Regarding abortion, Mr. Kerry made it clear that he does possess religious beliefs having been raised as a Catholic. He emphasized, however, that he cannot press these views upon everyone and legislation should be free of religious ideology. He commented that an ideal judicial decision should be unbiased and the background of the author indeterminable. In other words, there should be a clear separation of religion and government. I do not recall Bush directly commenting upon the issue of religion and government but the final two words of his closing statement were “God Bless”. I have never quite understood this phrase. To me, it seems something that should only be uttered by a religious leader who deems himself to be doing the work of god and not someone who should be looking out for the interests of all Americans, regardless of religion. Certainly, the term god can mean many different things, but I am sure that the god George was calling on to bless his audience was very defined, was spelled with a capital “g”, and particular to his religious views.
Overall, I do feel Kerry won this debate although I felt he could have been more pointed in his criticism of George Bush. However, given the time limitations and the pressure of having to compress everything into two minute statements or 30 second rebuttals, many things must be left unsaid. In terms of character, I cannot recall John Kerry making a joke or cracking a smile throughout the debate. He came across as concerned, serious, and eloquent but perhaps unable to connect with the average person. George Bush seemed confident during his prepared monologues but seemed to falter when required to formulate his own rebuttals which usually began with a light-hearted joke. In contrast to the mask of composure that covered Kerry’s face while being criticized, George looked far more uncomfortable; his hands were clenched and the frequency of blinking increased markedly. It would be interesting to watch the face of each candidate throughout the debate regardless of who was talking since it would give a more revealing picture of each man.
Overall, I found the debate interesting and relatively entertaining. Realizing the structural limitations, I did not expect to be dazzled with in-depth discussions or have my opinions of the two men radically altered. In Canada, given the multi-party nature of our parliament, there are usually four or five candidates vying for airtime in a televised debate. Thus, each person is allotted a limited amount of time and it often becomes a contest over which opposition party leader can deliver the sharpest barb at the incumbent leader and score the most points with the electorate. A televised debate between just two leaders seems to be far more effective and entertaining format. This certainly does not mean I favour a two party system. How two parties, especially when they both lean to the right of the political spectrum, can possibly represent the interests of all Americans is unfathomable and a probable cause of the apathy towards politics in general.
What immediately struck me was how the candidates used the questions, no matter how specific, to launch into prepared rhetoric that either twisted the question grotesquely or avoided it all together. Both Kerry and Bush were guilty but the final question to George Bush still resonates in my mind. A member or the audience asked Mr. Bush to provide three examples of mistakes that he has made during his four years while president.
First, he made light of the fact that he makes thousands of decisions a day, some trivial, others of great significance. Then, in an attempt to obfuscate the question, he theorized that in the future, historians might judge some of his actions to be mistakes. However, Mr. Bush insisted that in his mind, all his decisions have been correct and he would not categorize any of them as mistakes.
Admitting a mistake is always a hard thing to do and one might postulate that for a president to do so would be political suicide especially when you purport yourself to be the all-seeing, all-knowing, never-wavering Commander-in-Chief and “leader of the free world”. However, with the recent revelations concerning the multiple failures in intelligence, the premature declaration of “Mission Accomplished”, the inability to capture America’s Number One enemy, Osama Bin Laden, and the lack of precautions taken prior to September 11th despite the warnings of an imminent terrorist attack, Bush certainly had many mistakes to choose from; yet, in his political mind, he had done everything correctly.
Could Bush have admitted to three mistakes and survived politically? That is a difficult question given how the media and competition would have jumped on a clip of Bush saying we made a mistake and replayed it ad naseum. It would have been particularly damning for Bush as he always portrays himself as a strong leader and someone who reduces issues to simple yes-and-no, black-and-white dichotomies.
In the debate, Bush hammered home this simplistic view of issues throughout the evening particularly when criticizing Kerry’s voting record in the Senate. Frequently, Bush would point to a vote in the Senate and deduce Kerry’s position from how he voted. For example, during the debate over abortion, President Bush criticized Kerry over not voting for the bill ending funding for partial birth abortions. Bills are not simple documents. They contain complex legalese and often deal with multiple, but related issues, at once. Thus, included in the partial-birth legislation were other anti-abortion-related articles that Mr. Kerry did not agree with. Thus, he voted no and he explained his reasoning in the debate. As Mr. Kerry spoke, Bush, rather than listening politely, turned to the audience, shrugged his shoulders, whispered the word “What?!” and shook his head in apparent mock of his opponents reply. Again, sophomoric debating techniques were on display.
During the debate on stem cell research, Bush made a remark that he does not believe in sacrificing the life of an unborn in an attempt to cure diseases that afflict the living. Thus, he endorsed a bill that severely limited embryonic stem cell research to the currently available stem cell lines. Although he may be against the “killing of the unborn”, Bush seems to have no qualms about sacrificing the living in his quest to rid the world of “evil” and deliver “freedom”. His sponsorship of the war on Iraq has murdered thousands of Iraqi children, women, and other innocent civilians, not to mention over 1000 young Americans. It seems severely hypocritical to prevent the killing of unborn embryos while simultaneously sanctioning the murder of the living.
Regarding abortion, Mr. Kerry made it clear that he does possess religious beliefs having been raised as a Catholic. He emphasized, however, that he cannot press these views upon everyone and legislation should be free of religious ideology. He commented that an ideal judicial decision should be unbiased and the background of the author indeterminable. In other words, there should be a clear separation of religion and government. I do not recall Bush directly commenting upon the issue of religion and government but the final two words of his closing statement were “God Bless”. I have never quite understood this phrase. To me, it seems something that should only be uttered by a religious leader who deems himself to be doing the work of god and not someone who should be looking out for the interests of all Americans, regardless of religion. Certainly, the term god can mean many different things, but I am sure that the god George was calling on to bless his audience was very defined, was spelled with a capital “g”, and particular to his religious views.
Overall, I do feel Kerry won this debate although I felt he could have been more pointed in his criticism of George Bush. However, given the time limitations and the pressure of having to compress everything into two minute statements or 30 second rebuttals, many things must be left unsaid. In terms of character, I cannot recall John Kerry making a joke or cracking a smile throughout the debate. He came across as concerned, serious, and eloquent but perhaps unable to connect with the average person. George Bush seemed confident during his prepared monologues but seemed to falter when required to formulate his own rebuttals which usually began with a light-hearted joke. In contrast to the mask of composure that covered Kerry’s face while being criticized, George looked far more uncomfortable; his hands were clenched and the frequency of blinking increased markedly. It would be interesting to watch the face of each candidate throughout the debate regardless of who was talking since it would give a more revealing picture of each man.
Overall, I found the debate interesting and relatively entertaining. Realizing the structural limitations, I did not expect to be dazzled with in-depth discussions or have my opinions of the two men radically altered. In Canada, given the multi-party nature of our parliament, there are usually four or five candidates vying for airtime in a televised debate. Thus, each person is allotted a limited amount of time and it often becomes a contest over which opposition party leader can deliver the sharpest barb at the incumbent leader and score the most points with the electorate. A televised debate between just two leaders seems to be far more effective and entertaining format. This certainly does not mean I favour a two party system. How two parties, especially when they both lean to the right of the political spectrum, can possibly represent the interests of all Americans is unfathomable and a probable cause of the apathy towards politics in general.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Sports Day!
Late September and early October is the Sports Day season in Japan. Usually, the heat of the summer is subsiding and the sun shines frequently. This year, however, has seen an excessive number of rainy days forcing the delay, and in the case of some schools, cancellation of the event.
A week ago I was able to attend Innai Chubu Elementary School's Sports Day while yesterday I involved myself in KamiInnai Elementary School's Fureai Taikai (ふれあい大会）. Unlike the other schools in my area which have student enrollment of 50 to 120 students, KamiInnai possesses only six students, and perhaps more amazing, four staff. Last year, the student to staff ratio was 1:1, with the seven students being matched by three teachers, a principal, a vice-principal, a health teacher, and the ubiquitous tea lady who always ensured my tea cup was brimming with hot green tea. Needless to say, the school is unique and the atmosphere could be described as magical.
Obviously, a sports day involving six students, their parents and the teachers would prove to be a little lonely. So, members of the local community are invited to attend as well. As you can imagine, with only six kids at the school, the local area's average age probably approaches 70 years. Therefore, the elderly of the area come out in force and make it a joy to watch. Where else can you see a 80 year old lady putting on a firefly costume and running around a track?
Events exclusively for the students are interspersed with numerous events involving the adults. The children help officiate and watch the adults make fools of themselves as they pop balloons with their asses, make themselves dizzy by spinning around a baseball bat, and cover themselves with a strong foundation of flour and water in the search for an elusive candy.
The event brings the community together and allows for interaction between the youth and elderly something that I feel is extremely important especially given the aging population.
Other fellow bloggers have commented on the overt militarism that pervades these Sports Days as if the Imperial Army could be ressurected at a moments notice by simply blowing a whistle at a school. Certainly, the marching and coordinated cheering can be construed as miliaristic but so can most sports events throughout the world. American football is a case in point. The entire game is infused with militarism and overt aggression is not only permitted, it is applauded. The language of the military and football are so entwined that it came become difficult to discern which was the original source. Furthermore, marching bands, a staple of high school and college football events , are certainly of military origin.
Regardless of the military overtones, the dedication that both the students and the teachers demonstrate is unseen in my North American experiences. The teachers have the day's events planned to the minute while the students spend countless hours perfecting their cheers and practicing for events. If you have a chance, I highly recommend attending an event. This is where the importance and effectiveness of teamwork begins.
A week ago I was able to attend Innai Chubu Elementary School's Sports Day while yesterday I involved myself in KamiInnai Elementary School's Fureai Taikai (ふれあい大会）. Unlike the other schools in my area which have student enrollment of 50 to 120 students, KamiInnai possesses only six students, and perhaps more amazing, four staff. Last year, the student to staff ratio was 1:1, with the seven students being matched by three teachers, a principal, a vice-principal, a health teacher, and the ubiquitous tea lady who always ensured my tea cup was brimming with hot green tea. Needless to say, the school is unique and the atmosphere could be described as magical.
Obviously, a sports day involving six students, their parents and the teachers would prove to be a little lonely. So, members of the local community are invited to attend as well. As you can imagine, with only six kids at the school, the local area's average age probably approaches 70 years. Therefore, the elderly of the area come out in force and make it a joy to watch. Where else can you see a 80 year old lady putting on a firefly costume and running around a track?
Events exclusively for the students are interspersed with numerous events involving the adults. The children help officiate and watch the adults make fools of themselves as they pop balloons with their asses, make themselves dizzy by spinning around a baseball bat, and cover themselves with a strong foundation of flour and water in the search for an elusive candy.
The event brings the community together and allows for interaction between the youth and elderly something that I feel is extremely important especially given the aging population.
Other fellow bloggers have commented on the overt militarism that pervades these Sports Days as if the Imperial Army could be ressurected at a moments notice by simply blowing a whistle at a school. Certainly, the marching and coordinated cheering can be construed as miliaristic but so can most sports events throughout the world. American football is a case in point. The entire game is infused with militarism and overt aggression is not only permitted, it is applauded. The language of the military and football are so entwined that it came become difficult to discern which was the original source. Furthermore, marching bands, a staple of high school and college football events , are certainly of military origin.
Regardless of the military overtones, the dedication that both the students and the teachers demonstrate is unseen in my North American experiences. The teachers have the day's events planned to the minute while the students spend countless hours perfecting their cheers and practicing for events. If you have a chance, I highly recommend attending an event. This is where the importance and effectiveness of teamwork begins.
Some advice for Dick
Dear Dick,
I know that you will be engaging in a debate on public TV with John Edwards shortly. Although I am sure Karl Rove and the others are busy filling your mind with the lies and deceptions you need to disseminate on that night, let me give you a bit of advice.
I heard you talking to Senator Pat Leahy a couple months ago. You told him to "Go fuck yourself." With all the recent hoopla about the vulgarity of TV degrading American Christian morals, you should be careful with that wicked tongue of yours.
Here is the advice; using "fuck" as an adjective rather than as a verb might help keep the FCC at bay. Thus, please note the following instructive examples.
EXAMPLE 1
“John Edwards! Go fuck yourself” This is bad. THE WORD has been used as a verb and the FCC will be hounding you. You could claim that it was a vocabulary allocation failure. However, on the positive side, it might increase your popularity amongst those hip, hard-to-reach, MTV demographic. But, please, please refrain from flashing a nipple. I enjoy keeping my partially digested food within the confines of my digestive tract.
EXAMPLE 2
“John Edwards! You are a fucking, feeble, French-loving faggot” Perfectly acceptable as THE WORD has been used as an adjective. Furthermore, you will have appeased fans of alliteration, religious right gay bashers, and Freedom Fry fans.
If you are still confused, ask Bono. He knows the difference.
I know that you will be engaging in a debate on public TV with John Edwards shortly. Although I am sure Karl Rove and the others are busy filling your mind with the lies and deceptions you need to disseminate on that night, let me give you a bit of advice.
I heard you talking to Senator Pat Leahy a couple months ago. You told him to "Go fuck yourself." With all the recent hoopla about the vulgarity of TV degrading American Christian morals, you should be careful with that wicked tongue of yours.
Here is the advice; using "fuck" as an adjective rather than as a verb might help keep the FCC at bay. Thus, please note the following instructive examples.
EXAMPLE 1
“John Edwards! Go fuck yourself” This is bad. THE WORD has been used as a verb and the FCC will be hounding you. You could claim that it was a vocabulary allocation failure. However, on the positive side, it might increase your popularity amongst those hip, hard-to-reach, MTV demographic. But, please, please refrain from flashing a nipple. I enjoy keeping my partially digested food within the confines of my digestive tract.
EXAMPLE 2
“John Edwards! You are a fucking, feeble, French-loving faggot” Perfectly acceptable as THE WORD has been used as an adjective. Furthermore, you will have appeased fans of alliteration, religious right gay bashers, and Freedom Fry fans.
If you are still confused, ask Bono. He knows the difference.
My take on the debate
Media coverage of US politics in Japan is surprisingly extensive. In the past months, both the Democratic and Republican conventions were broadcast live on BS1, NHK’s free satellite channel, in addition to the usual CNN, ABC and PBS news programs. When I lived in Canada, I usually ignored the US news stations in preference to news with a Canadian perspective which demoted American politics to 3 or 4 minute stories rather than hour long programs. However, given Japan and America’s unique relationship, it is understandable that a significant percentage of air time is consumed with issues concerning American politics and economics.
I was unable to watch the debate in its entirety but did see the highlights. As I suspected, John Kerry conducted himself as a refined debater using relatively sophisticated techniques to broadcast his ideas to the public. Bush appeared to be an accomplished high school debater and nothing more. When Kerry mentioned the need for the US to apply a “Global Test” before acting preemptively, the best rebuttal Bush could enunciate was a shrug of the shoulders and a dimwitted “What’s a Global Test?” accompanied by his trademark smirk.
As an aside, that smirk has irked me for years. To me, it is what you would find on a smug kid who would rely on his dad to bail him out when the water became too hot. It usually appears when something Bush considers witty and sharp tongued emerges from his mouth. In my opinion, it shows contempt for the general public and demonstrates his inability to intellectually engage the issues.
I will concede that the incumbent president or a former vice-president is always placed on the defensive in a debate which is often the more difficult position. Thus, Kerry, armed with ample fodder with which to attack Bush, seemed to be on the offensive most of the night. When Bush did attack Kerry’s frequent wavering on issues such as his support for the Iraq war, instead of simply defending himself, Kerry used it to effectively attack Bush’s ability to judge when American lives should be sacrificed. This effective technique allowed the viewers to directly compare who had made the greater mistake.
I enjoy intellectual arguments that take more than one or two sentences to enunciate. Too frequently, complex issues are reduced to easily digestible sound bites or are ignored completely as they are deemed not fit for public consumption. While Bush continued with his rhetoric about being a strong leader and Commander-in-Chief who supports his troops, I particularly enjoyed Kerry’s comments about the Cuban Missile Crisis when an official visited Charles De Gaulle and offered to show him the spy photographs justifying the American position. De Gaulle responded that he did not need to see the photos as he believed the word of the American president. Kerry then contrasted this with the lies and half-truths that the American government used to justify their war to the United Nations and how the current American president will never be able to regain the trust of the international community again. I thought it was an extremely effective method of conveying the distrust of the current administration that pervades the international community. However, it would not surprise me if references to De Gaulle are too obscure for the general electorate and continue the perception of Kerry being elitist. I am sure that the cry for Freedom Fries are still echoing through some cafeterias and people will wonder how Kerry could have the gall to bring up De Gaulle.
It does appear that Kerry “won” the debate in the general public according to polls taken immediately following. This must be particularly troubling for the Bush campaign given that national security which is intimately tied with the “War on Iraq/Terror” is Bush’s strength. It will be interesting to watch the remaining debates and what changes will be made. In my opinion, Bush needs to display more intellectual prowess and a firm grasp of the issues. Too often he is unable to come up with concrete examples and fumbles with important names. He is the master of repeating the same thing over and over again, much like his father’s “Thousand points of light”, “Stay the course”. However, one must wonder how effective this strategy will remain given Mr. Kerry’s demonstrated debating skills on Thursday evening.
I was unable to watch the debate in its entirety but did see the highlights. As I suspected, John Kerry conducted himself as a refined debater using relatively sophisticated techniques to broadcast his ideas to the public. Bush appeared to be an accomplished high school debater and nothing more. When Kerry mentioned the need for the US to apply a “Global Test” before acting preemptively, the best rebuttal Bush could enunciate was a shrug of the shoulders and a dimwitted “What’s a Global Test?” accompanied by his trademark smirk.
As an aside, that smirk has irked me for years. To me, it is what you would find on a smug kid who would rely on his dad to bail him out when the water became too hot. It usually appears when something Bush considers witty and sharp tongued emerges from his mouth. In my opinion, it shows contempt for the general public and demonstrates his inability to intellectually engage the issues.
I will concede that the incumbent president or a former vice-president is always placed on the defensive in a debate which is often the more difficult position. Thus, Kerry, armed with ample fodder with which to attack Bush, seemed to be on the offensive most of the night. When Bush did attack Kerry’s frequent wavering on issues such as his support for the Iraq war, instead of simply defending himself, Kerry used it to effectively attack Bush’s ability to judge when American lives should be sacrificed. This effective technique allowed the viewers to directly compare who had made the greater mistake.
I enjoy intellectual arguments that take more than one or two sentences to enunciate. Too frequently, complex issues are reduced to easily digestible sound bites or are ignored completely as they are deemed not fit for public consumption. While Bush continued with his rhetoric about being a strong leader and Commander-in-Chief who supports his troops, I particularly enjoyed Kerry’s comments about the Cuban Missile Crisis when an official visited Charles De Gaulle and offered to show him the spy photographs justifying the American position. De Gaulle responded that he did not need to see the photos as he believed the word of the American president. Kerry then contrasted this with the lies and half-truths that the American government used to justify their war to the United Nations and how the current American president will never be able to regain the trust of the international community again. I thought it was an extremely effective method of conveying the distrust of the current administration that pervades the international community. However, it would not surprise me if references to De Gaulle are too obscure for the general electorate and continue the perception of Kerry being elitist. I am sure that the cry for Freedom Fries are still echoing through some cafeterias and people will wonder how Kerry could have the gall to bring up De Gaulle.
It does appear that Kerry “won” the debate in the general public according to polls taken immediately following. This must be particularly troubling for the Bush campaign given that national security which is intimately tied with the “War on Iraq/Terror” is Bush’s strength. It will be interesting to watch the remaining debates and what changes will be made. In my opinion, Bush needs to display more intellectual prowess and a firm grasp of the issues. Too often he is unable to come up with concrete examples and fumbles with important names. He is the master of repeating the same thing over and over again, much like his father’s “Thousand points of light”, “Stay the course”. However, one must wonder how effective this strategy will remain given Mr. Kerry’s demonstrated debating skills on Thursday evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)