I wasn’t exactly planning on writing about the presidential debates. I have watched them thus far, discussed them, thought about them. But I must say… last night’s VP debates were lively. Amusing. I’ve always heard about how Cheney can be a real jerk sometimes. He wasn’t showing that side last night. He was however showing his superior understanding and intelligence in political matters, and did have a few effective sharp jabs aimed at Edwards and Kerry. If I were Edwards, only my pride would keep me from being completely embarrassed. For all his years as a trial lawyer, I gotta say, it has taught him sophistry, but not even sophistry did he perform well. His comments lacked substance and relevance. So he’s a new guy. He hasn’t been in the political arena as much as someone like Cheney. But even still, in giving him the credit of attempting to be a good debator… his words- to me- just overflowed with naivete. I appreciate and admire – in a sense- his idealism. But even in my own bit of political naivete, I still couldn’t help but feel that Edwards (and at times, Kerry as well) are just out of touch with politics and foreign policy. You really can’t tell the American people every thing, and every reason for every decision. It is just impossible, you would end up getting yourself into a mess and perhaps endanger the lives of others. You can say you want to do bilateral talks with Korea but I’m going to side with Bush on this one because at least Bush has been there, worked with the leaders of other nations, and can base policy on his experience and understanding of how things can be - and also will never be –accomplished. That is not to say he is always right, or that I think bilateral talks are bad… but they are idealistic, and have that tinge of naivete that just doesn’t make me believe in the wisdom of Kerry/Edwards on foreign policy. That is not to say I think Cheney is great. I don’t particularly know what to think of him, but at least he demonstrates his knowledge of the facts better, voices his opinions even when contrary to Bush, and shows up to vote on legislation. And as I said, I do appreciate the idealism of Edwards, and also his southern hospitality, but that just is not going to make things happen- or resolve any issues- in domestic and foreign policy, in my opinion. There's my two cents for now.
by love.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Debates
Posted by Kristi at 4:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Disclaimer: I apologize if this posts about 10 times, my computer is suffering el gripe and feels the sick need to shut down without prior notice...very thoughtful. So, for possibly the third time, here are my not-so-abridged-thoughts on the VP debates...you know, just wanted to add my own 20 yen(2 cents.)
It’s true Edwards has less political experience than Cheney, however, and this does not imply you, many citizens claim career politicians to be self-serving and fickle, with good reason, so perhaps someone with less political experience, someone new to the game with real ideals of perfection and satisfaction for the American populace is more what we need, rather than a candidate defending his “throne.” Something Edwards said struck me, “One thing that's very clear is that a long résumé does not equal good judgment." I could not agree more - to me, it seemed that Cheney spent a good deal of time defending his actions and inactions in office, as well as his administration’s, rather than explaining his efforts for the future. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. What’s done is done, let’s improve international diplomacy and cooperation and move on, can’t change the past, so no point arguing.
You mentioned that Kerry and Edwards are perhaps out of touch with foreign diplomacy, and there, I believe, is a tricky issue. True, Bush has more experience in dealing with foreign diplomats and leaders, but as the same time, he has more experience threatening Asian nations with nuclear attacks, ignoring some of the most extreme human rights abuses in history and truly pissing off the European Union to the point of isolating America. As much as I admire George Washington, his policies on isolationism are antiquated and deserve revision. Foreign cooperation is exactly what we need right now, especially considering the grave situation in Iraq.
Following up on Iraq, Cheney stated that he would recommend the same course in Iraq if he had it to do over again, claiming that the world is safer today because Saddam Hussein is out of power and that America did “exactly the right thing.” No way. I don’t buy it. You can’t possibly assume some supra-moral position and claim the current administration did the right thing, for we haven’t experienced the consequences of all other actions in this area, so that alone disproves him and disappoints me. What really hurts, having lost a friend in the war, is that neither Cheney nor Bush apologizes for the lack of control they have over the casualties and confusion. Even though the war is declared over, and has been for quite a while, American soldiers continue to die, hostages are taken on a daily basis, and the country is racked with refugees, famine, political instability and insanity…that does not sound like the right thing. I wouldn’t do that over if I had the chance, nothing is safer because Sadam is gone, in fact, now the American populace is at risk even more, and the only ones benefiting are those with economic stakes in Iraq, I.e. Hailburton, which receives 7.5 billion annually from Iraq alone, and more importantly, Cheney, CEO.
Moving on, I agree you can’t inform the American people of every political strategy and decision, for it’s simply not plausible. But there is a large difference between withholding info for the sake of overabundance and misinforming or lying to your constituents in order to garner support for certain military actions. For instance, claiming ties between Hussein and 9/11, which has been proven false, but was ardently supported and hailed by Bush and Cheney. Not only is that promoting falsities, it’s assuming guilt prior to investigation, that’s not what the American judicial system maintains, neither should the executive branch.
Some may say that Kerry and Edwards are too wishy-washy for politics (those are exact words I heard yesterday.) It’s true they’ve changed positions on multiple occasions, but doesn’t everyone? Given that more information is present now than before, the correct information is only now being given some attention - and given that the American response to the war has changed, and support is lower now than initially, of course they’re going to change their statements. The point of being president isn’t to assume stupidity of your constituents and presuppose your own mental superiority, it’s to adhere to their wishes, and that’s exactly what Edwards and Kerry seem to be doing. THEY are the ones following the opinions of Americans, adapting them, adding their own spin, and throwing them back out there, willing to truly serve the people rather than some misogynistic desire to rule the world both politically and economically.
The highlight of the night was when Cheney defended gay rights, due to his daughter’s sexual preference…thumbs up for him, and following, despite difference of opinions in terms of gay rights legislation, Edwards applauded Cheney for supporting his daughter. In the end, isn’t it really all about people instead of legislation? I know firsthand what little impact the plebes of America have on influencing domestic policy, and it’s not promising, but it’s not necessarily about the party or the legislation, it all comes down to people.
p.s. I should add that I was only able to view portions of the debates and I agree that Edwards oratorical skills need some practice, or a labotomy, either works. His insults were especially disheartening, not even witty, just plain lame....but no one is perfect...needs to be reiiterated every so often. Oh, and I'm NOT, I repeat NOT, plugging any political party, though it may sound that way.
Go Miss K!
I agree. Let's leave the big jobs to the people who actually know what is going on and have a realistic plan of action.
Sophists always make me sick.
Cheers,
Laura
re: lauren's comment. my responses are within your paragraphs, marked by asterisks.
"It’s true Edwards has less political experience than Cheney, however, and this does not imply you, many citizens claim career politicians to be self-serving and fickle, with good reason, so perhaps someone with less political experience, someone new to the game with real ideals of perfection and satisfaction for the American populace is more what we need, rather than a candidate defending his “throne.”"
*This may be true, and sometimes the less experienced people with vision need a chance to try to make things better. However, my point is that these ideals of perfection are impossible, and though perhaps worth striving for, may end up plummeting our nation into deeper trouble for these ideals can oftentimes be ignorant of and/or ineffective in diplomacy.*
"Something Edwards said struck me, “One thing that's very clear is that a long résumé does not equal good judgment." I could not agree more - to me, it seemed that Cheney spent a good deal of time defending his actions and inactions in office, as well as his administration’s, rather than explaining his efforts for the future. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. What’s done is done, let’s improve international diplomacy and cooperation and move on, can’t change the past, so no point arguing."
*I disagree. He dispelled Edwards’ objections with facts of improvement and positive progress, and also spoke of ways to continue this progress. I do think a lot in Iraq hinges on Iraq taking control of their own nation and stepping up to leadership. There is hopes this will be seen in the forthcoming elections. I hope as well. I think Iraq does need to take ownership of their nation, but I don’t think abandoning them now would help this be accomplished. Ingenuity is a great thing, but I think there needs to be good judgment, if you will, on when ingenuity is required and is the best course to follow… in foreign diplomacy, esp. with the nation’s safety at risk, I do not think the best judgment is to start fresh with new approaches to solutions. They will derail the improvements currently underway. Ingenuity is, however, needed and useful it seems to me in domestic affairs. Thus, I am definitely eager to hear the last presidential debate next week as they focus on precisely this topic.*
"You mentioned that Kerry and Edwards are perhaps out of touch with foreign diplomacy, and there, I believe, is a tricky issue. True, Bush has more experience in dealing with foreign diplomats and leaders, but as the same time, he has more experience threatening Asian nations with nuclear attacks, ignoring some of the most extreme human rights abuses in history and truly pissing off the European Union to the point of isolating America. As much as I admire George Washington, his policies on isolationism are antiquated and deserve revision. Foreign cooperation is exactly what we need right now, especially considering the grave situation in Iraq."
*I agree, and it also seems the Bush administration agrees, for otherwise why would they have 30 allies already in cooperation? Apparently, even if the Bush administration has p.o’ed the European Union, at least some of those countries are cooperating and working with the U.S. in Iraq.*
"Following up on Iraq, Cheney stated that he would recommend the same course in Iraq if he had it to do over again, claiming that the world is safer today because Saddam Hussein is out of power and that America did “exactly the right thing.” No way. I don’t buy it. You can’t possibly assume some supra-moral position and claim the current administration did the right thing, for we haven’t experienced the consequences of all other actions in this area, so that alone disproves him and disappoints me. What really hurts, having lost a friend in the war, is that neither Cheney nor Bush apologizes for the lack of control they have over the casualties and confusion. Even though the war is declared over, and has been for quite a while, American soldiers continue to die, hostages are taken on a daily basis, and the country is racked with refugees, famine, political instability and insanity…that does not sound like the right thing. I wouldn’t do that over if I had the chance, nothing is safer because Sadam is gone, in fact, now the American populace is at risk even more, and the only ones benefiting are those with economic stakes in Iraq, I.e. Hailburton, which receives 7.5 billion annually from Iraq alone, and more importantly, Cheney, CEO."
*The choice of words, I agree, was not the best. I agree, no one can know “exactly” the right thing. Yet I do believe Cheney and Bush can have confidence in the decisions they made, which is clearly the underlying point. They wouldn’t change anything, and I see nothing wrong with stating that. I also think they are perhaps correct— in the aftermath of 9/11 Bush declared to track the terrorists down, to make America safer. His approval ratings were the highest yet- I believe over 90%. But what Americans don’t like facing is the reality of war. I don’t like facing it. But sometimes – as a friend of mine commented – war is the lesser of two evils. The uproar with Americans over the war I do not believe is solely from Bush going against Saddam. They don’t like war, period. As for Saddam, this was a question in my mind as well. Was there a link, a reason to go after him? (Though I would draw attention to the fact that apparently 75% of terrorists ‘blacklisted’ that have been already killed or captured by the military in accordance with the Bush admin.) A friend who I posed this question to replied with convincing evidence, which came from UN Resolution 144, in which it stated that “a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein," of which Saddam did not accept, and therefore Bush is validated in his pursuance of Saddam as commander in chief, even if there is nothing to tie Saddam to 9/11. And even the candidates agree- the world is safer without him in power, and the Iraqi’s rejoiced at that.*
"Moving on, I agree you can’t inform the American people of every political strategy and decision, for it’s simply not plausible. But there is a large difference between withholding info for the sake of overabundance and misinforming or lying to your constituents in order to garner support for certain military actions. For instance, claiming ties between Hussein and 9/11, which has been proven false, but was ardently supported and hailed by Bush and Cheney. Not only is that promoting falsities, it’s assuming guilt prior to investigation, that’s not what the American judicial system maintains, neither should the executive branch. Again, they had reasonable evidence and cause to suspect and go after him, even if ultimately he wasn’t connected to 9/11."
"Some may say that Kerry and Edwards are too wishy-washy for politics (those are exact words I heard yesterday.) It’s true they’ve changed positions on multiple occasions, but doesn’t everyone? Given that more information is present now than before, the correct information is only now being given some attention - and given that the American response to the war has changed, and support is lower now than initially, of course they’re going to change their statements. The point of being president isn’t to assume stupidity of your constituents and presuppose your own mental superiority, it’s to adhere to their wishes, and that’s exactly what Edwards and Kerry seem to be doing. THEY are the ones following the opinions of Americans, adapting them, adding their own spin, and throwing them back out there, willing to truly serve the people rather than some misogynistic desire to rule the world both politically and economically."
*I would like to point out that no single person or leader or president or presidential candidate can claim to be following the opinions of Americans. This is because many people do not agree- some people follow Kerry because he seems to reflect their beliefs and opinions, but some are following Bush because Bush seems to reflect their beliefs and opinions. No one in this election can claim to be following the will of the people. But I don’t think a good leader is made by following the people. One can never do that. Kerry may follow the will of the people in your eyes, but not in mine, and even if he were, that does not mean he would be a good leader, perhaps a decent president, not a good leader. I think it is unfair to infer that the Bush admin., and Bush himself, are trying to rule the world. I think it is more fair to say they are trying to protect America and other people in the world from the dangers and dangerous people in this world. If spear-heading the fight against injustice, tyranny, and terrorism is ruling the world, so be it.*
"The highlight of the night was when Cheney defended gay rights, due to his daughter’s sexual preference…thumbs up for him, and following, despite difference of opinions in terms of gay rights legislation, Edwards applauded Cheney for supporting his daughter. In the end, isn’t it really all about people instead of legislation? I know firsthand what little impact the plebes of America have on influencing domestic policy, and it’s not promising, but it’s not necessarily about the party or the legislation, it all comes down to people."
*This is something I do appreciate about Cheney. He definitely differs from Bush on this issue, and he will voice that opinion. Incidentally, Edwards was Kerry’s opponent leading up to the Democratic nomination, and claimed Kerry’s policies were not good for America… but now he has so quickly changed his tune… what happened to *his* opinions?*
that's all ;)
And now, straight from SJCSF:
I have watched the first two debates, and while I will miss the one tonight, I have been talking about the VP debate with other Johnies. One of my housemates has been saying that he does not mind if we have a president who is willing to lie to the people. However, there are some conditions in his opinion. If you find that in order to do something for the good of the country (arguably, topple the Taliban), then it should be done, and if that requires lying to get the people behind you, then so be it. However, if the president wishes to do something not for the good of the people but say, his own good, and he lies to the people in order to get their support, that is an issue. Another friend thinks that what is really behind the invasion of Iraq is the fact that the king of Saudia Arabia, who has about 120 sons, is going to die eventually. This will likely lead to instability, meaning issues with oil production. But because of the current American lifestyle, we need oil. We have now removed all American military presence from Saudi Arabia and into Iraq, hopefully Iraq will be stable before Saudi Arabia becomes unstable. On a side note, we removed Sadam Hussein from power and Americans from the country of Mecca and Medina (one of Al Qaeda's former greivances). So the issue the country's leaders saw was that the continuation of our current lifestyle would be called into doubt unless something were found to replace Saudi Arabia's oil. Arguably in the interest of the people. But the solution happens to benefit not just Halliburton, but the oil industry in general, US companies in particular. This will perhaps solve the problem in the short run, but the oil is still going to run out during this century. It seems the real solution lies either in changing the American lifestyle or finding other ways of providing for all the energy we currently consume.
Other comments:
I can see why Cheney may have voted to allow plastic firearms, at least here there is a constituancy, but not to ask for the freedom of Nelson Mandela?
About the first debate: One of the things I am most angry about is that Bush allowed North Korea to gain a number of nuclear weapons. The last time North Korea tried to pull something like this, Cliton was ready to go to war. Bush ignored the issue, then finally decided to drag other countries into the process, allowing North Korea to play Japan, China and Russia off of each other as well as the US. I am glad that Kerry was willing to call attention to this error. We need fewer nuclear weapons, not more, and definately not more countries with them.
Jake
Post a Comment