Post Debate Wrap-Up
First of all, I should say that I just got done watching the debate on videotape. We had another hockey game tonight (another easy win) and so I had to tape it. I watched it straight through, without a notepad, to just get a general impression of the thing. I tried to see it from a general public point of view, as opposed to my personal political junkie view. I have not watched any media, read any articles, or seen any instant polls. These are just my first impressions.
The Debate:Bush started out strong I think. He seemed to know what his message was (Kerry sends mixed messages) and he stayed on message. But as much as it seems he knows his message, Bush still seems completely detached from the reality in Iraq. He has no new proposal, no new plan. Just more of the same. Is "the same" working? Not today, many people died today in multiple car-bombings in Baghdad. Shouldn't Kerry have mentioned this news just as an example? Kerry objected mostly to Bush's decision process and planning in the war, but not about the conduct of the war itself. Which is odd, because he is making that the main focus of his Iraq argument.
Kerry did a better job of stating his Iraq position than I have ever heard him give tonight. He said Bush went to war "the wrong way" and "rushed" into it. But then he did not follow through with all the other things that should have followed. What about not securing the borders which Allawi says terrorists are "pouring through"? What about disbanding the army, or letting the looting go on? What about our conduct towards al-Sadr? What about Fallujah? What about the fact that even Republicans are complaining now about the "total incompetence" (Chuck Hagel) displayed? The whole debate seemed to focus on why Bush went to war, not whether or not it was administrated poorly. Point missed by Kerry.
Kerry kills me with the whole work with our allies thing. Number one, it is pessimistic because it suggests America cannot accomplish anything it sets out to do. Of course, we could not fight a global War on Terror without any help from other nations, but our collective ego thinks we can. Also, it plays into his perceived weakness of leaning on other countries too much. Kerry says he would not give any other nation veto power of our security, but then he says all the time we need allies. When exactly would he go it alone if he had to? Couldn't he say "if American lives and interests our at stake, I would to defend our people no matter what the rest of the world thought." When Kerry trotted out that example about John Kennedy and Charles DeGaulle, I was looking for a hook to come out. Hello, mentioning "France" does not help your cause.
Perfect example is his "solution" for Iraq. A summit. Great, I'm sure the militants will just stop their attacks against our soldiers then. Once we start talking. Remember I wanted to know what Bush or Kerry would do right now to change things. I heard nothing tonight.
Wrap-Up of Wrap-Up:
Kerry won, but not by much. Not enough to change the race. I think he passed a bar, he looked and seemed presidential. But I do not know that he moved the polls too much tonight. I can see his performance being effective for those I-kind-of-want-to-vote-for-Kerry-but-I-have-doubts type of people. I think his "leaners" are now more in the strong category. Kerry won on points, but he certainly did not score a knockout. Bush seemed a little lost and on the defensive. All he seemed to say was- this is "hard work" and we have to be "resolute" to win.
Best line for Kerry - It's one thing to be certain, another thing to be certain and be wrong.
Best line for Bush - I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.
Things notable by their absence: Only one Israel mention? No mention at all of Palistinian conflict, "Road Map" to peace... Nothing at all about the lack of progress there, and what we could or should be doing about it? Wow, how that has fallen off the face of the news (by the way, 29 people died today, and an Israeli spokeman called it an "escalation," "not an invasion.")
Abu Gharib prison. How much of this horrible conduct might be linked to Rumsfeld's edict that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.
Our border security. We heard some stuff from Kerry about our ports, but nothing about our borders. Homeland security, right?
9/11 Comission, new intelligence director, any of these recommendations.
The Debate:Bush started out strong I think. He seemed to know what his message was (Kerry sends mixed messages) and he stayed on message. But as much as it seems he knows his message, Bush still seems completely detached from the reality in Iraq. He has no new proposal, no new plan. Just more of the same. Is "the same" working? Not today, many people died today in multiple car-bombings in Baghdad. Shouldn't Kerry have mentioned this news just as an example? Kerry objected mostly to Bush's decision process and planning in the war, but not about the conduct of the war itself. Which is odd, because he is making that the main focus of his Iraq argument.
Kerry did a better job of stating his Iraq position than I have ever heard him give tonight. He said Bush went to war "the wrong way" and "rushed" into it. But then he did not follow through with all the other things that should have followed. What about not securing the borders which Allawi says terrorists are "pouring through"? What about disbanding the army, or letting the looting go on? What about our conduct towards al-Sadr? What about Fallujah? What about the fact that even Republicans are complaining now about the "total incompetence" (Chuck Hagel) displayed? The whole debate seemed to focus on why Bush went to war, not whether or not it was administrated poorly. Point missed by Kerry.
Kerry kills me with the whole work with our allies thing. Number one, it is pessimistic because it suggests America cannot accomplish anything it sets out to do. Of course, we could not fight a global War on Terror without any help from other nations, but our collective ego thinks we can. Also, it plays into his perceived weakness of leaning on other countries too much. Kerry says he would not give any other nation veto power of our security, but then he says all the time we need allies. When exactly would he go it alone if he had to? Couldn't he say "if American lives and interests our at stake, I would to defend our people no matter what the rest of the world thought." When Kerry trotted out that example about John Kennedy and Charles DeGaulle, I was looking for a hook to come out. Hello, mentioning "France" does not help your cause.
Perfect example is his "solution" for Iraq. A summit. Great, I'm sure the militants will just stop their attacks against our soldiers then. Once we start talking. Remember I wanted to know what Bush or Kerry would do right now to change things. I heard nothing tonight.
Wrap-Up of Wrap-Up:
Kerry won, but not by much. Not enough to change the race. I think he passed a bar, he looked and seemed presidential. But I do not know that he moved the polls too much tonight. I can see his performance being effective for those I-kind-of-want-to-vote-for-Kerry-but-I-have-doubts type of people. I think his "leaners" are now more in the strong category. Kerry won on points, but he certainly did not score a knockout. Bush seemed a little lost and on the defensive. All he seemed to say was- this is "hard work" and we have to be "resolute" to win.
Best line for Kerry - It's one thing to be certain, another thing to be certain and be wrong.
Best line for Bush - I'm interested in working with our nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America.
Things notable by their absence: Only one Israel mention? No mention at all of Palistinian conflict, "Road Map" to peace... Nothing at all about the lack of progress there, and what we could or should be doing about it? Wow, how that has fallen off the face of the news (by the way, 29 people died today, and an Israeli spokeman called it an "escalation," "not an invasion.")
Abu Gharib prison. How much of this horrible conduct might be linked to Rumsfeld's edict that the Geneva Convention does not apply to terrorists.
Our border security. We heard some stuff from Kerry about our ports, but nothing about our borders. Homeland security, right?
9/11 Comission, new intelligence director, any of these recommendations.
posted by Scott L. Stuart at
1:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home