As it has been incredibly obvious ever since I started this blog, despite my attempts to be as impartial to the election campaigns and the presidential debates, I will be voting for John Kerry on November 2nd. I'll lay it out in a list format to make things less painful to slog through
Foreign Policy:
Iraq: This is _the_ most important reason why I am voting against Bush and supporting Kerry. His inabilty to quell tje insurgency and the inability to even protect the country from looting during the first week of the occupation has given way to instability, due to the non-existent infrastructure that the country possessed, and continues to posses. Hospitals were stripped of medical supplies; museums were plundered of Iraqi cultural artifacts; food storehouses were raided; violence erupted in the streets. All while American troops looked on without even bothering to intervene in restoring the order. Mind you, I'm not attacking the troops and accusing them to be the cause behind the present situation in Iraq. I am criticizing the people in the upper echelons of the army and Rumsfeld who didn't have the preservation of Iraqi infrastructure as a priority on their list of "things to do" and, instead, secured buildings and anything else related to black gold. But that probably goes too far in terms of following Kerry's stump speech.
What really bothers me about Iraq is the attitude that the President and his cabinet has taken to the conflict. They just don't seem to care to report the facts nor do they really care about Iraq. Instead, they seem to be serving for some "unknown" party that has ulterior goals that, probably, would not settle right with the American people if the truth really came out. But even in that regard, that have been unapologetic to the American public. Without public outcry from their constitutents, they have been able to pursue policy and handle business behind closed doors with impunity and without regard of the majority, however slim the majority may be. I can marginally forgive the president for pushing a bad policy on Iraq with "bad intelligence," but his inability to step up and to take blame like a true leader and to come straight with his own constituents bodes poorly if he were to take another four years, especially with his terrorism flagship of fear leading as his call to war and as his stump on the podium during the election.
North Korea and Iran: I have not followed these two countries as well as I have with Iraq. However, I have been aware of the growing potential nuclear threat that these two countries. Unfortunately, Bush's hard and uncompromising stance on "my way or the highway" doesn't give many reassurances that he won't invade their countries like he did to Iraq or Afghanistan, _despite_ the US armed forces being stretched so thin. The only way they can deter such a threat is to build nuclear arms as bargaining chips. In my opinion, Bush has adopted a strategy of "spreading 'Democracy'" at any cost and has set to go beyond sanctions for N. Korea, Iran, and Cuba. Would it involve invading these countries? Probably.
UN and other alliances: Bush does not bode well for the global coalition that is called the UN. Granted that the UN didn't have much teeth to begin with to deal with acute world crises, Bush really ripped out the heart of the organization and trampled all over it with his invasion of Iraq. In my opinion, he has completely alienated the international community by his unilateralism and, if we would ever need their assistance in a crisis, we would be paying for it dearly without our usual allies. France and Germany are half of that problem with their staunch anti-war policies.
Is Kerry any better? Yes, but only in one way. He is willing to take a hit to his reputation and ask the UN to provide assistance. Though France and Germany will refuse to assist in the efforts, and understandably so, it would at least be the right step towards taking pressure off of the American forces to be able to properly deal with Sudan. Also, his more forgiving posture will be an asset in dealing with North Korea, considering his more 'laissez faire' attitudes compared to Bush. Right now, N. Korea is in an economically unfavorable state, and it has not been mitigated by Bush's hardline stance towards the country in economic sanctions and outright anti-[North] Korean rhetoric. I'm not sure how to really approach Iran, though, as I am not as well informed on this country.
Domestic Policy:
Draft: The question right now is, "Will Bush reinstate the draft?" I believe so, but he will put it off until after he is recognized as the victor -- eg mid-November to December. Right now, the foreign policy he has conducted in the Middle East has taxed the armed forces to the extent where he has to draw on the National Guard, who are usually only called to duty to defend the country from foreign agressors or to deal with domestic emergencies. Right now, the US forces have been unable to cope with the security issues in Iraq in Fallujah and has even called on the UK to cover its back. If Bush is unwilling to appeal to change his foreign policies on Iraq, he will be forced to enstate a draft to replace the daily loss of troops to insurgent activity, eventually. Knowing Bush, I say that he'll announce thed draft (a topic so conveniently ignored in election politics) within the week that he is reelected. As for Kerry, he's more of an uncertain variable in this area, but I can say that his Iraq policy almost gauarantees a lesser chance for a draft, and the draft will occur _next year_, since he can only instate the draft when he is sworn in. Unfortunately, if he were elected, I don't think it would prevent Bush from reinstating the draft as one of his last acts in office. This is going beyond pessimistic, though.
Economic Policy: As much as I like Bush's capitalist ideals in free trade, he has been incredibly blatant in favoring the rust belt swing states that has resulted in the EU threatening to slap on 200-300% tarrifs on American goods, which I think is a big no-no, especially since he is supposed to have a clue as an MBA graduate from Harvard. Personally, I can't make much of a statement on job outsourcing, other than that a global economy is an eventual occurance. However, the method of transition is quite sudden, considering that a lot of skilled laborers, including those who may have graduated from college with bachleor's degrees are now being shortchanged in this fast-moving economic world. It's hard to believe that, now, a PhD may now be the only way to get a (decently) secure job, though even that is doubtful. The people that now seem to have the secure jobs are those in local services and those who have graduated with professional and business degrees. There really is no spot for the middle class anymore, unless they decide to open their own local businesses or startups, and that really threatens the middle class in terms of economic mobility. I have yet to see Bush address the corporate worker, the white collar cubicle worker, on why, even though he has a college degree, is losing jobs based on economics, and _not_ based on qualifications, that was the limiting factor several decades ago. I'm not saying that we should all gravitate towards the 1950s-1980s, but a society like this today should at least reward some sort of educational commitment with a secure, high-paying job. Bush's salve policy of retraining, unfortunately, doesn't work with a workforce that consists of people who have already left college for at least a decade, and to expect them to start over a new career and work their way back up again. At best, it would make a new pseudo-generation of low-skill technicians. They would find work, but they'd be plumb out of luck if they were to try to work up a corporate ladder again. The American educational system needs to evolve to train the skilled workers in the new economy in lucrative and dynamic fields. Eventually, America needs to eventually move towards an all white-collar economy, where we import all of our steel, food, and fuel. Why? Let me elaborate: 1. it'll keep production prices at a minimum [for steel]; 2. it'll allow the US to specialize in cutting-edge technologies and the development of new products and new fields of science espeically in federal funding [right now, we give farmer substudies of > $50B, if I remember correctly]; 3. it'll also force us to attempt to be more efficient [higher fuel efficiency with cars, trucks, and power generation, as well as developing new energy technologies to harness renewable resources], whether it may be in manufacturing or consumption. It may hurt in the short term, but it would pay us back so much. However, the transition has to occur smoothly. Right now, Bush's policies are far from "smooth," which doesn't bode well for a continuously dynamic transition. Unfortunately, Kerry's refusal to allow job outsourcing doesn't help things either and will probably set back the global economy for as long as he is in office.
Government Policy: The amount of government spending has gone out of control, especially with the extensive involvement in Iraq. It has siphoned over $150B with no end in sight, which is contributing greatly to the federal deficit, on top of tax cuts that Bush insists on pushing through. Even when he pushed tax cuts during the economic recession and claimed them to be an economic stimulus package, it failed to give a lasting effect on the economy, only boosting the GDP for one quarter. The government has also grown with the Dept. of Homeland Security, as well as the passage of several laws that violate civil rights, including the Patriot Act (as misnomered as it is). On top of that, the President and his Cabinet tries to sweep the shortcomings under a rug, while putting on a facade that says that "everything's all right." Something's up, and a lot of people know it, but are afraid to voice their concerns. It is as if we're starting to regress towards a "1984" world where the government is in the shadows in total control, despite Bush's crowing about individual choice. Kerry's government policy doesn't offer much of an alternative, but he has at least claimed that he will protect the rights of citizens, something that Bush has not mentioned.
Healthcare: The healthcare system is in shambles. 1/5 is without health insurance, despite having the highes per-capita income in the world. The health insurance industry, hospitals, pharmacuticals, and lawyers have run out of control gauging patients (mostly uninsured patients, at that) to earn a little extra here and there, with a monopoly on a person's life, much less the quality of it. Unfortunately, I can only see a social healthcare system at work, or at least a heavily regulated to a heavily subsidized healthcare system. The free market forces has not helped healthcare costs, and Bush's policy on "policy bulk purchases" seems to be the worst plan out of all possible plans. 1. Companies must bargan with each other to see who foots the bill for their payments, and they have to join in numbers in the first place if they are to have any effect. 2. It doesn't address the long term rise in healthcare costs. It's only a short-term solution. Kerry's healthcare plan is better, but the funding that will be required from his plan needs to be taken from somewhere else. My suggestion is to take it from the healthcare industry, whether it may be from insurance companies, hospitals, or pharmaceuticals. In my opinion, redistributing the costs from those who actually make money would work. Whatever they charge for premiums would cycle back to the policyholders to pay their deductibles. It's a rudimentary idea, though, so don't jump all over me about it.
Religion: Bush has become the most polarizing President in this nation's history, and I believe that it is all behind religion. Bush has waved the far-right banner in front of evangelicals and conservatives. The biggest problem is his inability to uphold the Constitution, which states that there should be the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, that separation becomes thinner and thinner as the weeks pass, and as the Republican majority of the federal government continue to dissolve the constitutional barrier. A NYT article a couple of months quoted a Republican senator implying that he wanted religion to take a more prevalent role in running the government. Unfortunately, this has already happened, with Bush banning stem cell research and abortion (claiming that he supports all forms of human life -- What about those Iraqis and terrorists, Mr. President?) and his advocacy of a constitutional amendment of gay marriage (claiming that they must ban gay marriage because of "activist judges." I can only challenge him with his activist Republican colleagues that wish to run the country under religion.) What it comes down to is that he has failed to convince me that he is not running under the ticket of a relgious base, as opposed to secular moral beliefs. Kerry has signaled that he will keep church and state separate, which is something I strongly support. I believe that all major political conflicts that exist in the world today are strictly caused by religious roots, and secularism _must_ prevail to prevent another major conflict, whether it may be domestic or foreign.
Judical Appointments: This part of the election has been severely overlooked. It has been signaled for at least a month or two, under the radar, that one to four US Supreme Court Justices will retire in the next four years, which will open up the whole court to an overhaul. With Bush's agneda, his record on his appeals and circuit judge appointees, and his relgious base, the US Supreme Court is in danger of being stacked with far-right justices that will swing the delicate balance of the court (which frequently rules in 5-4, split on left/right lines) towards a solid conservative side for the next 20 years. This is the second-most important reason why I do not support Bush. The conservative trend that exited in the 1950s is still very evident in the country today. The US is the most racist industrial country in the world with racial tensions aplenty. Appointing conservative judges would at best set us back to 20 years in civil rights and general social progress.
Overall, I absolutely do not support the way Bush has run this country. He has taken the politics of this country and has used it for his own devices. There are also many other policies that I do not like, including education, immigration, etc. which makes me keep swaying away from him as well, but I won't delve into those since I need to end this entry soon. Unfortunately, Kerry is not an ideal candidate for my views, but he has a much better outlook for the country, and for Asian Americans, which I am, that includes anti-discriminatory practices and equal opportunity offerings, which may include an Asian American US Supreme Court appointment (unlikely, though) if Kerry takes office. However, we have to get past November 2. My major fear about Bush ( -- fear is always the reason how we vote -- how we fear that we'll lose a little bit of money or not have our voices heard appropriately) is that how he will set back the country. In the last four years, he has set back the country and its relations with the international community by about 5-10 years at best. He has set back scientific discovery about 5 years. South Koreans and Singaporians are now starting to surge ahead of the US in stem cell research and scientific discoveries. We're losing talented immigrants to other countries like China, England, etc. because of the stricter and xenophobic immigration policies that have been put into place after the World Trade Center was destroyed. Right now, Arabs and Asian Indians are under intense scruitny for terrorist activity because of these events. Such scruitny can easily spread to other groups like Asian Americans. With a conservative government as a goal on his mind for the second term, especially with Justice appointments in the second term, a strongly conservative US Supreme Court will set back the country by at least 20 years in social progress. Bush's agression in his foreign policy and the threat of him invading other countries are very real, and can further set back our country by another 50 years (think Japan and Germany after WWII). Not only that, but it can severely weaken the US military and the economic fallout that the US will have to bear to support these troups without foreign assistance would most likely weaken the US to a second-rate power, paving way to propel China in being the next superpower. However, China would not be a threat if it became a true superpower. It is the gap in between those two events, if they were to happen, that would be the biggest global and domestic threat to the US. In my opinion, we cannot let Bush take the presidency for another four years. God help us all if he does, and if the Republican party decides to pull off another dirty election like they did in Florida (which is most likely going to happen again).
20041031
20041027
Lunar Eclipse
Right now is the lunar eclipse that should be visible to just about everyone in the northern part of the western hemisphere. As much as the newscasts talk about the different colors that the moon can take, this lunar eplise (and my first, mind you) is very different from what the astronomers say. They've claimed that the moon takes on a copper-like hue to a dark blood red shade when the moon is totally eclpised. Unfortunately, the best color I can give it right now is a light copper. Maybe it's because of all of the ambient light around me. Anyway, back to work.
20041013
Running comments on the 3rd Presidential Debate
Running comments on the 3rd Presidential Debate
2110
Bush is still back to his fear tactics and stretching truthes on the order of a lie. He claims that he never said that he doesn't care about Osama bin Laden, but he so did. This is exactly what he did when Kerry said that Bush owned a timber company, and Bush denied it (and was later confirmed, at least according to a friend over a phone conversation). I can't believe that he can do this and pull a straight face.
2112
Kerry keeps on saying 'I have a plan', 'I have a plan.' He needs specifics.
2113
Bush, as I've noticed, has been able to make complete sentences again, though not as well as the 2nd debate.
2114
Kerry.. needs to stop getting sidetracked so much. He keeps going on tangents
2118
Bush's assistance for second careers has barely been funded, from what I can recall. ~$100M
Kerry needs to jump on Bush's spending liberalism and the consequence of higher deficits...
Pell grants are only effective for state school education. Not in private schools.
2125
Bush. Just running numbers aimlessly.
2127
Bush put a hole in his foot on tolerance with gay marriage
If he wants to protect issues from activist judges, he should pass some sort of amendment to check the judges, NOT protect certain issues. This is a key flag that he's fighting on a religious side rather working for the government.
2131
Kerry stumbling on religion.. o.O
2136
Kerry is now talking to the camera. This is a huge improvement in his addressing to the audience. Bush, on the other hand, has gone the other way and is mainly addressing the arbitrator
2143
Kerry wins on healthcare, though I don't like what he's offering at the moment. Ultimately, I think that there'll have to be some sort of regulation in the health care system in hospitals, etc.
2150
'Most' means just over 50%. What BS.
Also, tax cuts work with those who DO pay taxes, not those in poverty, or are below the taxable level.
Fiscal sanity and low taxes? How the hell is this possible?
2156
It looks like Bush doesn't even read the news stories on the ease of people of getting into the US and the complaints of the border patrol.
2158
Kerry will enforce workplace discrimation laws. This is very good and at least boosts his claim to enforce the 11275 (?) EO on anti-discrimination laws in the workplace.
2205
WOW! Kerry actually laid out a plan on the US armed forces!
2230
Kerry won, but not as resoundingly as he did in the first debate. Kerry failed to lay out a lot of his financial policies on the table for every to look. However, he did hold his ground against Bush when he was attacked.
Bush mostly went after numbers to go after Kerry's record and picking and choosing to see how it see fit, where Kerry did less. Bush, however, did change his debate demeanor quite a bit since the first debate, and it should help him a lot there. Unfortunately, he still had some very immature moments during the debate.
One objection: There were tons of nods towards minorities, but only towards Hispanics and Blacks. None towards Asian Americans, though Kerry did drop a hint.
Sorry for such a short comment column. The debate was very engrossing, but I have med school apps so, I don't have much time to say much else.
2110
Bush is still back to his fear tactics and stretching truthes on the order of a lie. He claims that he never said that he doesn't care about Osama bin Laden, but he so did. This is exactly what he did when Kerry said that Bush owned a timber company, and Bush denied it (and was later confirmed, at least according to a friend over a phone conversation). I can't believe that he can do this and pull a straight face.
2112
Kerry keeps on saying 'I have a plan', 'I have a plan.' He needs specifics.
2113
Bush, as I've noticed, has been able to make complete sentences again, though not as well as the 2nd debate.
2114
Kerry.. needs to stop getting sidetracked so much. He keeps going on tangents
2118
Bush's assistance for second careers has barely been funded, from what I can recall. ~$100M
Kerry needs to jump on Bush's spending liberalism and the consequence of higher deficits...
Pell grants are only effective for state school education. Not in private schools.
2125
Bush. Just running numbers aimlessly.
2127
Bush put a hole in his foot on tolerance with gay marriage
If he wants to protect issues from activist judges, he should pass some sort of amendment to check the judges, NOT protect certain issues. This is a key flag that he's fighting on a religious side rather working for the government.
2131
Kerry stumbling on religion.. o.O
2136
Kerry is now talking to the camera. This is a huge improvement in his addressing to the audience. Bush, on the other hand, has gone the other way and is mainly addressing the arbitrator
2143
Kerry wins on healthcare, though I don't like what he's offering at the moment. Ultimately, I think that there'll have to be some sort of regulation in the health care system in hospitals, etc.
2150
'Most' means just over 50%. What BS.
Also, tax cuts work with those who DO pay taxes, not those in poverty, or are below the taxable level.
Fiscal sanity and low taxes? How the hell is this possible?
2156
It looks like Bush doesn't even read the news stories on the ease of people of getting into the US and the complaints of the border patrol.
2158
Kerry will enforce workplace discrimation laws. This is very good and at least boosts his claim to enforce the 11275 (?) EO on anti-discrimination laws in the workplace.
2205
WOW! Kerry actually laid out a plan on the US armed forces!
2230
Kerry won, but not as resoundingly as he did in the first debate. Kerry failed to lay out a lot of his financial policies on the table for every to look. However, he did hold his ground against Bush when he was attacked.
Bush mostly went after numbers to go after Kerry's record and picking and choosing to see how it see fit, where Kerry did less. Bush, however, did change his debate demeanor quite a bit since the first debate, and it should help him a lot there. Unfortunately, he still had some very immature moments during the debate.
One objection: There were tons of nods towards minorities, but only towards Hispanics and Blacks. None towards Asian Americans, though Kerry did drop a hint.
Sorry for such a short comment column. The debate was very engrossing, but I have med school apps so, I don't have much time to say much else.
20041010
Capitol Steps and Presidential Debate
Here are my opinions on the two other events that occured last week that was worth mentioning. And they come two days late
Capitol Steps:
Featured frequently on NPR, this political satire musical group is consisted of former Capitol Hill aids to senators and representatives. They mostly poke fun at popular and political figures and happenings in the world and in the US. The Capitol Steps were at CWRU for the Alumni Weekend events, and I somehow was able to get tickets to watch them. To put it shortly, they're good. At times, they're risque and dumb, other times, they're very smart with plenty of innuendo. The whole auditorium (about 550 people) was laughing along with the troupe actors who sometimes couldn't stop laughing themselves. No target was left unsoiled. They went from Saddam Hussein, to George W Bush and George HM Bush, to John Kerry, to Martha Stewart, and the list goes on and on and on. At the end, and over the smoking dead bodies of their targets, we gave them a standing ovation for their performance. It was a $10 well spent.
Presidential Debate:
Unfortunately, the Capitol Steps caused me to miss about half of the second rount of debates for the Presidency. Basically, I missed the foreign policy portion of the debate, drove home during the second third of the debate on the economy. As the result, I could not draw up an effective running blog on the debate.
However, from the rest of the debate I was able to catch, it seemed that that Bush and Kerry were pretty even -- Bush was actually able to make complete sentences. On domestic issues, Kerry seemed to have an edge with substance on the economy, the deficit, and several morality issues, especially with stem cell research. Unfortunately, neither had an edge on health care -- both plans were bad. Bush, on the other hand, had an edge on his demeanor that he had towards the crowd that was gathered in the room, even though he seemed whiny at times. In my opinion, Kerry had to field much more difficult questions compared to Bush, and neither of the two candidates really laid out any 'plans' for the future in running the country. It seems that we're going to have to vote for two black boxes. Overall, the debate was effectively a tie. If I had to choose one winner, Kerry would have won by a slim margin based on substance.
All there is to look forward to, now, is the third round of debates on Wednesday night. The topic: domestic policy. Hopefully, we'll get more and better answers in that debate, though it would be nice if we just had Kerry and Bush go at a free-for-all for two or three hours in a cage.
Until then,
Capitol Steps:
Featured frequently on NPR, this political satire musical group is consisted of former Capitol Hill aids to senators and representatives. They mostly poke fun at popular and political figures and happenings in the world and in the US. The Capitol Steps were at CWRU for the Alumni Weekend events, and I somehow was able to get tickets to watch them. To put it shortly, they're good. At times, they're risque and dumb, other times, they're very smart with plenty of innuendo. The whole auditorium (about 550 people) was laughing along with the troupe actors who sometimes couldn't stop laughing themselves. No target was left unsoiled. They went from Saddam Hussein, to George W Bush and George HM Bush, to John Kerry, to Martha Stewart, and the list goes on and on and on. At the end, and over the smoking dead bodies of their targets, we gave them a standing ovation for their performance. It was a $10 well spent.
Presidential Debate:
Unfortunately, the Capitol Steps caused me to miss about half of the second rount of debates for the Presidency. Basically, I missed the foreign policy portion of the debate, drove home during the second third of the debate on the economy. As the result, I could not draw up an effective running blog on the debate.
However, from the rest of the debate I was able to catch, it seemed that that Bush and Kerry were pretty even -- Bush was actually able to make complete sentences. On domestic issues, Kerry seemed to have an edge with substance on the economy, the deficit, and several morality issues, especially with stem cell research. Unfortunately, neither had an edge on health care -- both plans were bad. Bush, on the other hand, had an edge on his demeanor that he had towards the crowd that was gathered in the room, even though he seemed whiny at times. In my opinion, Kerry had to field much more difficult questions compared to Bush, and neither of the two candidates really laid out any 'plans' for the future in running the country. It seems that we're going to have to vote for two black boxes. Overall, the debate was effectively a tie. If I had to choose one winner, Kerry would have won by a slim margin based on substance.
All there is to look forward to, now, is the third round of debates on Wednesday night. The topic: domestic policy. Hopefully, we'll get more and better answers in that debate, though it would be nice if we just had Kerry and Bush go at a free-for-all for two or three hours in a cage.
Until then,
20041007
Post-Debate Activities
I forgot to enter a blog entry regarding what I did at CWRU after the Veep Debate ended
2 big things happened, more or less.
1. I got interviewed by a reporter from the BBC News (Brazil Service) about my opinions about the debate and on the presidential/vice-presidential candidates. This time, there was no camera, but a microphone and a Sony Minidisc Walkman. And this time, I actually spoke coherently, though I stumbled here and there at some parts. Overall, I was really satisfied in the way I spoke with clarity and a moderated speed, both lacking when I was with the CNN crowd. I think I was also the only independent in the crowd of students he interviewed -- they were all wearing Bush paraphenalia.
2. I also attended the Edwards rally in the University (Museum) Circle. There were over 1200+ people there cheering and just having a good time. I could never have imagined that a campaign could be so energetic and cheerful. It made me want to cheer along with them. Anyway, what really scares me, though, is that Edwards speaks exactly like a lawyer. It's a really scary thought, and I'm not sure if it'd be such a good thing if a he brings his lawyer tactics or potential favoritism towards lawyers into his office. Regardless, he speaks well and on the level of the common man, which makes him so charismatic.
Anyway, the circus is over in Cleveland. Though I"ll be missing about 1/3 of the debate on Friday (Town Hall style with an open floor to questions), I really look forward to this debate. Unfortunately, I want one question asked in that debate, but I seriously doubt whether it will come up or not: What can and what will you do, as president, for Asian Americans to gain equal rights and to reverse the overall negative sentiments towards them?
Until then...
2 big things happened, more or less.
1. I got interviewed by a reporter from the BBC News (Brazil Service) about my opinions about the debate and on the presidential/vice-presidential candidates. This time, there was no camera, but a microphone and a Sony Minidisc Walkman. And this time, I actually spoke coherently, though I stumbled here and there at some parts. Overall, I was really satisfied in the way I spoke with clarity and a moderated speed, both lacking when I was with the CNN crowd. I think I was also the only independent in the crowd of students he interviewed -- they were all wearing Bush paraphenalia.
2. I also attended the Edwards rally in the University (Museum) Circle. There were over 1200+ people there cheering and just having a good time. I could never have imagined that a campaign could be so energetic and cheerful. It made me want to cheer along with them. Anyway, what really scares me, though, is that Edwards speaks exactly like a lawyer. It's a really scary thought, and I'm not sure if it'd be such a good thing if a he brings his lawyer tactics or potential favoritism towards lawyers into his office. Regardless, he speaks well and on the level of the common man, which makes him so charismatic.
Anyway, the circus is over in Cleveland. Though I"ll be missing about 1/3 of the debate on Friday (Town Hall style with an open floor to questions), I really look forward to this debate. Unfortunately, I want one question asked in that debate, but I seriously doubt whether it will come up or not: What can and what will you do, as president, for Asian Americans to gain equal rights and to reverse the overall negative sentiments towards them?
Until then...
20041005
Vice Presidential Debates at Case Western Reserve University -- Running Comments
2105
Cheney is still using old information about linking Al Queda with Iraq ('the 10 year relationship'). There has yet to be any _solid_ evidence to link AQ with Iraq
It seems that the cameramen are adhering to the established rules strictly. This does not bode well for this debate.
2109
Edwards is following Kerry's message from last Thursday's debates. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be answering the questions directly and is making extraneous points
2111
Where's Cheney's nuiance between Sadam Hussein, AQ, and terror? He has yet to explain himself satisfactorily on Iraq. However, he is doing surprisingly well in contrast to Bush in terms of making complete sentences. Edwards will certainly have a difficult time vs. him.
2113
Still, Cheney's claims about Afghanistan is not conistent with the reported facts that the media has reported on the status of the Afghans
2115
Edwards is spending too much time being sidetracked. However, he is doing a good job contrasting situations with what Cheney's painting.
2116
Possible breach in rules. Edwards spoke in response before being granted permission
2118
Retraction of the "global test" quote? Edwards backing up into a corner. He didn't address the clarification of 'global test' very well, imo
2125
Cheney seems to know his facts much better than Edwards does, and keeps pulling them up to back up his points. He is painting a power picture, however out-of-context it may be.
Edwards is vague at times in his response to Cheney's arguments.
2129
He neglected to mention pulling allies into Iraq to help with the stabilization effort
Finally, split screen to show both candidates' reactions.
I can't believe that Bush/Cheney is still using numbers to back up their coalition vs Iraq. 1991's Gulf War consisted of all (if not most of) the European powers. Today, there is only three at best.
2136
My question right now is how accurate is Cheney, really? He makes his points like they're natrually the truth. If he's lying, it's hard to tell from his demeanor.
2142
Edwards response in the Israeli/Palistinian conflict doesn't address Arab grievances. The Arab vote may swing towards Bush a little.
Cheney is certainly Bush's attack dog and does the dirty work for him. There is definately no doubt about that.
2148
No Child Left Behind law seems to put undue stress on good schools when all surrounding schools (if they're bad) loste students to these schools. THe good schools can't spend money on these extra schools. How can this be a working model?
2154
Cheney is painting Edwards as totalatarian by taxes. How ironic.
2159
Edwards has improved his demeanor on the camera. He's more relaxed, less nervous now. Less stammering
2202
Cheney has conceded a loss on gay marriage by not responding to Edwards' run on his daughter other than a 'Thank You'
2203
Kerry/Edwards will most likely lose the MD vote on healthcare reform (malpractice reform). But, his 3-strikes out rule for lawyers who file bad malpractice lawsuits sounds tempting. Unfortunately, there is real no credibility that either camp will go through with their version of malpractice lawsuit treatment. Edwards' proposal implies autonomy among lawyers (their buddies). It doesn't seem to be the best solution. If they include MDs with lawyers on a review board for cases, it may hold more water.
2209
Edwards.. doesn't seem to be a good liar...
2215
Edwards, imo, is almost as simple as Bush in his speech. Is it his nature as a former lawyer?
"A long resume doesn't mean good judgement".. applied to Cheney can also apply to Kerry...
2217
Is the president's agenda really the VP's agenda for Cheney? Or is it the other way around? Recall the first accusation of Iraq having WMD was first uttered by Cheney.
2220
Cheney did sound like Darth Vader for a second there when his mic was out of line o.O
2221
Quoting and agreeing with Bush is a bad move for Edwards. He didn't fully contrast his position from Bush/Cheney
2231
Edwards is really all over the map. Get to the point, yo! (a tad too late in the debate to change much, though)
2235
Wow. Edwards closing comments sounded very much like a closing argument for a trial case. Creepy.
I can only classify Cheney's closing comments on his domestic policy to be utter BS. Touts terrorism as their main strength for reelection and democracy abroad. That is incredibly beyond truth that democracy is the only way to prevent terrorism.
Closing comments:
If I remember correctly, what made me support Bush in 2000 was because of Cheney and how well he spoke despite how Bush performed in his debates with Al Gore. Cheney certainly pulled fact after fact after fact to support his points, which was quite overwhelming compared to Edwards' more simplistic way of dealing with the questions and the issues. Edwards had a very good chance to attack Cheney on a lot of other fronts, but he was too preoccupied with general campaign strategies and was frequently off-topic to really mount an effective offensive to question Bush and Cheney's policies. On the surface, Edwards got owned, especially on the subject on attendance and performance in the Senate.
But, for those who have been up to date with the news, Cheney's comments on foreign and on domestic policies don't hold water. He paints many rosy pictures, but doesn't really deal with the hard realities that have been present in the media. Unfortunately, the general public will most likely not be aware of this big difference, especially since Edwards didn't bother to point out their lack of realizing the real picture of the US and of the world today.
Verdict:
On the surface, Cheney wins the debate resoundingly over Edwards.
Under analysis, Cheney wins marginally over Edwards (an effective tie), mostly due to style points and Edwards' inability to get his message to match Kerry's and to match his effectiveness to compound on Kerry's momentum from Thursday.
Overall, Kerry/Edwards will lose momentum. Friday will be a make/break point for the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
2nd Verdict:
Cheney is certainly Darth Vader and has an aura of evilness about him
Cheney is still using old information about linking Al Queda with Iraq ('the 10 year relationship'). There has yet to be any _solid_ evidence to link AQ with Iraq
It seems that the cameramen are adhering to the established rules strictly. This does not bode well for this debate.
2109
Edwards is following Kerry's message from last Thursday's debates. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be answering the questions directly and is making extraneous points
2111
Where's Cheney's nuiance between Sadam Hussein, AQ, and terror? He has yet to explain himself satisfactorily on Iraq. However, he is doing surprisingly well in contrast to Bush in terms of making complete sentences. Edwards will certainly have a difficult time vs. him.
2113
Still, Cheney's claims about Afghanistan is not conistent with the reported facts that the media has reported on the status of the Afghans
2115
Edwards is spending too much time being sidetracked. However, he is doing a good job contrasting situations with what Cheney's painting.
2116
Possible breach in rules. Edwards spoke in response before being granted permission
2118
Retraction of the "global test" quote? Edwards backing up into a corner. He didn't address the clarification of 'global test' very well, imo
2125
Cheney seems to know his facts much better than Edwards does, and keeps pulling them up to back up his points. He is painting a power picture, however out-of-context it may be.
Edwards is vague at times in his response to Cheney's arguments.
2129
He neglected to mention pulling allies into Iraq to help with the stabilization effort
Finally, split screen to show both candidates' reactions.
I can't believe that Bush/Cheney is still using numbers to back up their coalition vs Iraq. 1991's Gulf War consisted of all (if not most of) the European powers. Today, there is only three at best.
2136
My question right now is how accurate is Cheney, really? He makes his points like they're natrually the truth. If he's lying, it's hard to tell from his demeanor.
2142
Edwards response in the Israeli/Palistinian conflict doesn't address Arab grievances. The Arab vote may swing towards Bush a little.
Cheney is certainly Bush's attack dog and does the dirty work for him. There is definately no doubt about that.
2148
No Child Left Behind law seems to put undue stress on good schools when all surrounding schools (if they're bad) loste students to these schools. THe good schools can't spend money on these extra schools. How can this be a working model?
2154
Cheney is painting Edwards as totalatarian by taxes. How ironic.
2159
Edwards has improved his demeanor on the camera. He's more relaxed, less nervous now. Less stammering
2202
Cheney has conceded a loss on gay marriage by not responding to Edwards' run on his daughter other than a 'Thank You'
2203
Kerry/Edwards will most likely lose the MD vote on healthcare reform (malpractice reform). But, his 3-strikes out rule for lawyers who file bad malpractice lawsuits sounds tempting. Unfortunately, there is real no credibility that either camp will go through with their version of malpractice lawsuit treatment. Edwards' proposal implies autonomy among lawyers (their buddies). It doesn't seem to be the best solution. If they include MDs with lawyers on a review board for cases, it may hold more water.
2209
Edwards.. doesn't seem to be a good liar...
2215
Edwards, imo, is almost as simple as Bush in his speech. Is it his nature as a former lawyer?
"A long resume doesn't mean good judgement".. applied to Cheney can also apply to Kerry...
2217
Is the president's agenda really the VP's agenda for Cheney? Or is it the other way around? Recall the first accusation of Iraq having WMD was first uttered by Cheney.
2220
Cheney did sound like Darth Vader for a second there when his mic was out of line o.O
2221
Quoting and agreeing with Bush is a bad move for Edwards. He didn't fully contrast his position from Bush/Cheney
2231
Edwards is really all over the map. Get to the point, yo! (a tad too late in the debate to change much, though)
2235
Wow. Edwards closing comments sounded very much like a closing argument for a trial case. Creepy.
I can only classify Cheney's closing comments on his domestic policy to be utter BS. Touts terrorism as their main strength for reelection and democracy abroad. That is incredibly beyond truth that democracy is the only way to prevent terrorism.
Closing comments:
If I remember correctly, what made me support Bush in 2000 was because of Cheney and how well he spoke despite how Bush performed in his debates with Al Gore. Cheney certainly pulled fact after fact after fact to support his points, which was quite overwhelming compared to Edwards' more simplistic way of dealing with the questions and the issues. Edwards had a very good chance to attack Cheney on a lot of other fronts, but he was too preoccupied with general campaign strategies and was frequently off-topic to really mount an effective offensive to question Bush and Cheney's policies. On the surface, Edwards got owned, especially on the subject on attendance and performance in the Senate.
But, for those who have been up to date with the news, Cheney's comments on foreign and on domestic policies don't hold water. He paints many rosy pictures, but doesn't really deal with the hard realities that have been present in the media. Unfortunately, the general public will most likely not be aware of this big difference, especially since Edwards didn't bother to point out their lack of realizing the real picture of the US and of the world today.
Verdict:
On the surface, Cheney wins the debate resoundingly over Edwards.
Under analysis, Cheney wins marginally over Edwards (an effective tie), mostly due to style points and Edwards' inability to get his message to match Kerry's and to match his effectiveness to compound on Kerry's momentum from Thursday.
Overall, Kerry/Edwards will lose momentum. Friday will be a make/break point for the Kerry/Edwards campaign.
2nd Verdict:
Cheney is certainly Darth Vader and has an aura of evilness about him
20041004
I suck under pressure
So, CNN was on campus today to get video footage for their 25th aniversary celebration and recruited a lot of different students to talk on camera about various issues that they consider important in the upcoming elections.
Yours truely got camera time, but I stammered and sweated my way through the whole thing.
This does not bode well for future venues that require interviews.
Yours truely got camera time, but I stammered and sweated my way through the whole thing.
This does not bode well for future venues that require interviews.
Student Vice-Presidential Debate at CWRU -- Thoughts
041004
Student Vice President Debate at CWRU
[Officially known as the National Student Debate]
Apparently, it's an Republican vs Democrat matchup that looks like a mock VP debate on various issues
Colleges: JHU, Fisk, Emory, CMU, ROchester, Stanford, Cornell, CWRU, MIT, Duke, OSU (Ohio), University of Miami, Vanderbelt, Washington U @ St. Louis, and U of Florida.
At first glance, this gathering has a lot of medial presence with cameras and reporters around the room with press passes. Apparently, the BBC News World Service is also here. Will this debate ever be broadcast on any news or local channels? Most likely not, though it may be broadcast locally. The room only 2/3 full. I was expecting a packed event. It just seems to be an informal confrence on the presidential race.
I forgot, Judy Woodward is here. She's the anchor of CNN News. Perhaps this will have some attention after all.
The debate format for this student debate is no different from the Presidential/Vice Presidential Debate. 2 minute initial response; 1 minute rebuttal; 30 second follow-up.
Topic: Foreign Policy
1921
The debate seems to follow all of the issues that have been already brought up in the Presidential debate last week. The views aren't any different from both parties. However, there are some discrepancies with the main messages from each of the real campaigns, even with the same 'inaccuracies' that have been used and repeated in the actual debates.
1932
I've noticed that the responses to all of the questions from the moderator keeps on drawing from the president's or the presidential candidate's policies. The candidates don't mention much about themselves or their views or experiences. They just buttress the candidate's views without any new material. Is this really what the real vice presidential debate will be all about? If so, this will be a severely disappointing event on any further discussion from what has been last Thursday.
Democrat: Long winded; some missteps; some views don't match what Kerry put down last week, esp the primary threat [she mentioned terrorism as opposed to nuclear proliferation]
Republican: Spoke too fast, and is barely comprehensible at some points. He also follows closely to what the Bush campaign has said. But without the stammering and twitching.
Bush campaign wins by a small margin.
Topic: Economic Policy
1946
Ouch. The Republican debator just claimed that rich Americans shouldn't be discrimnated by income and pay more money.
1952
The Republican economic policy debator is intelligent and nuanced. What's ironic is that his attitude doesn't represent the labeled bullheadedness of the Bush/Cheny campaign.
1959
But he's not paying attention to responses and he isn't constructing rebuttals to rebuttals.
And he has a lot of holes in his arguments, and outdated according to Bush's policy
2002
Democrats win this round pretty resoundingly.
Topic: Domestic Policy
2010
Higher Education: Republican response: An extra $1000 to poor students to help them to go through college. That amount of money is a drop in the bucket compared to the real costs of college.
Standardized testing -- not necessarily better to get funding. Some just teach how to test and don't go after the real material that is important for education
Health Insurance: I will have to admit, Bush, IMO, has a better plan for long-term health insurance consolidation especially with capping malpractice rewards to really slash prices for health insurance. However, I don't believe Bush will really follow through with the policy considering the behavior of the administration. This includes insurance company lobbyists. I am also disappointed that Medicare was forbidden from negotiating lower prescription prices for drugs that the military and other government agencies can obtain as well.
I disagree strongly with any policy of letting the courts to determine what doctors keep practicing. It encourages frivilous lawsuits and also make doctors care more about whether they'll get sued instead of how they should treat the patient -- the real job of the doctor.
2025
Tie.
Topic: Social Issues
2027
Bathroom Break for the Democrat side
2029
Sanctity of life: That is certainly a good reason for abortion. But what about the moral position of premarital sex? Is Bush really doing anything to promote such 'moral' ideals to prevent such an act from being committed? All he talks about is abortion. What about campaigns for premarital sex? (Note that I have no interest in other people's sexual choices on time)
2037
Republican representative says that the party promotes tolerance. How can they claim that if they want to ban gay marriages? Rogue judges? They only interpret the constitution. They by definition cannot be partial, and being unelected allows them to be so without worrying about constituent ideals.
Battery to the laptop died here, so I took notes on paper as afterthoughts after the debate.
Two other issues in this topic section was piqued my interest:
Stem cell research: As the Democratic representative put it tactly, if Republicans respect the sanctity of life, does denying a person a normal life or a life without discomfort disease really follow their creed of preserving the sanctity of life? Whether an individual cell or an embryo has a soul or should even be considered a "human being" in terms of a fully developed child, adolescent, or adult, can always be debated and will never be resolved on religious or moral grounds (as much as a virus is debated as to whether or not it is alive or not). Instead, the issue needs to be focused on a more mundane issue as to whether or not stem cell research is worth the biological, financial, and moral risks (eg. whether a person should be cloned or not)
The church role in politics: secularism is a tricky issue in the national government. Churches certainly do good through public works, donations, food/hunger centers, temporary living quarters for the homeless, but they also push morals that conflict with other religions or other religious interests. If the government decides to recognize these religious institutions, it starts to dictate preference for certain religions (eg. faith-based initiatives -- who gets the money and what religions? Would it unfairly promote one religion over another? I believe that it would.) Secondly, the democratic representative raised an issue on presidential endorsements through church affiliations. It would certainly violate tax codes which allow religious institutions to file for federal tax-exempt status being a non-partisian body. Not only that, but it would violate the separation of church and state, where the church starts to put its hand into politics and influence how the government appeals to one religious group over another.
This match-up was probably the most interesting. The Republican representative was the most eloquent and passionate of the two debators while the Democratic representative was the most logic-driven debator. This would have fit well for a mock debate of presidential status compared to the vice-presidential status.
If there was a winner, I would have put Team Democrats as the winner by a slim margin. They had the most sound logic between the two (as a scientist). However, other people (the religous and those who are more driven by morals) would have considered the Republicans as the winner; or even a tie.
However, I was surprised as to how this whole debate went. There was a good discussion on the issues, and there weren't as many attacks as the presidential debate had last Thursday. This was also dispite the debate format of 2/1/30. There was also very little brow beating and "I art holier than thou" that I saw in high school where people tried to be politically correct or attempt to elevate themselves higher than others. It was certainly worth the attendance.
Student Vice President Debate at CWRU
[Officially known as the National Student Debate]
Apparently, it's an Republican vs Democrat matchup that looks like a mock VP debate on various issues
Colleges: JHU, Fisk, Emory, CMU, ROchester, Stanford, Cornell, CWRU, MIT, Duke, OSU (Ohio), University of Miami, Vanderbelt, Washington U @ St. Louis, and U of Florida.
At first glance, this gathering has a lot of medial presence with cameras and reporters around the room with press passes. Apparently, the BBC News World Service is also here. Will this debate ever be broadcast on any news or local channels? Most likely not, though it may be broadcast locally. The room only 2/3 full. I was expecting a packed event. It just seems to be an informal confrence on the presidential race.
I forgot, Judy Woodward is here. She's the anchor of CNN News. Perhaps this will have some attention after all.
The debate format for this student debate is no different from the Presidential/Vice Presidential Debate. 2 minute initial response; 1 minute rebuttal; 30 second follow-up.
Topic: Foreign Policy
1921
The debate seems to follow all of the issues that have been already brought up in the Presidential debate last week. The views aren't any different from both parties. However, there are some discrepancies with the main messages from each of the real campaigns, even with the same 'inaccuracies' that have been used and repeated in the actual debates.
1932
I've noticed that the responses to all of the questions from the moderator keeps on drawing from the president's or the presidential candidate's policies. The candidates don't mention much about themselves or their views or experiences. They just buttress the candidate's views without any new material. Is this really what the real vice presidential debate will be all about? If so, this will be a severely disappointing event on any further discussion from what has been last Thursday.
Democrat: Long winded; some missteps; some views don't match what Kerry put down last week, esp the primary threat [she mentioned terrorism as opposed to nuclear proliferation]
Republican: Spoke too fast, and is barely comprehensible at some points. He also follows closely to what the Bush campaign has said. But without the stammering and twitching.
Bush campaign wins by a small margin.
Topic: Economic Policy
1946
Ouch. The Republican debator just claimed that rich Americans shouldn't be discrimnated by income and pay more money.
1952
The Republican economic policy debator is intelligent and nuanced. What's ironic is that his attitude doesn't represent the labeled bullheadedness of the Bush/Cheny campaign.
1959
But he's not paying attention to responses and he isn't constructing rebuttals to rebuttals.
And he has a lot of holes in his arguments, and outdated according to Bush's policy
2002
Democrats win this round pretty resoundingly.
Topic: Domestic Policy
2010
Higher Education: Republican response: An extra $1000 to poor students to help them to go through college. That amount of money is a drop in the bucket compared to the real costs of college.
Standardized testing -- not necessarily better to get funding. Some just teach how to test and don't go after the real material that is important for education
Health Insurance: I will have to admit, Bush, IMO, has a better plan for long-term health insurance consolidation especially with capping malpractice rewards to really slash prices for health insurance. However, I don't believe Bush will really follow through with the policy considering the behavior of the administration. This includes insurance company lobbyists. I am also disappointed that Medicare was forbidden from negotiating lower prescription prices for drugs that the military and other government agencies can obtain as well.
I disagree strongly with any policy of letting the courts to determine what doctors keep practicing. It encourages frivilous lawsuits and also make doctors care more about whether they'll get sued instead of how they should treat the patient -- the real job of the doctor.
2025
Tie.
Topic: Social Issues
2027
Bathroom Break for the Democrat side
2029
Sanctity of life: That is certainly a good reason for abortion. But what about the moral position of premarital sex? Is Bush really doing anything to promote such 'moral' ideals to prevent such an act from being committed? All he talks about is abortion. What about campaigns for premarital sex? (Note that I have no interest in other people's sexual choices on time)
2037
Republican representative says that the party promotes tolerance. How can they claim that if they want to ban gay marriages? Rogue judges? They only interpret the constitution. They by definition cannot be partial, and being unelected allows them to be so without worrying about constituent ideals.
Battery to the laptop died here, so I took notes on paper as afterthoughts after the debate.
Two other issues in this topic section was piqued my interest:
Stem cell research: As the Democratic representative put it tactly, if Republicans respect the sanctity of life, does denying a person a normal life or a life without discomfort disease really follow their creed of preserving the sanctity of life? Whether an individual cell or an embryo has a soul or should even be considered a "human being" in terms of a fully developed child, adolescent, or adult, can always be debated and will never be resolved on religious or moral grounds (as much as a virus is debated as to whether or not it is alive or not). Instead, the issue needs to be focused on a more mundane issue as to whether or not stem cell research is worth the biological, financial, and moral risks (eg. whether a person should be cloned or not)
The church role in politics: secularism is a tricky issue in the national government. Churches certainly do good through public works, donations, food/hunger centers, temporary living quarters for the homeless, but they also push morals that conflict with other religions or other religious interests. If the government decides to recognize these religious institutions, it starts to dictate preference for certain religions (eg. faith-based initiatives -- who gets the money and what religions? Would it unfairly promote one religion over another? I believe that it would.) Secondly, the democratic representative raised an issue on presidential endorsements through church affiliations. It would certainly violate tax codes which allow religious institutions to file for federal tax-exempt status being a non-partisian body. Not only that, but it would violate the separation of church and state, where the church starts to put its hand into politics and influence how the government appeals to one religious group over another.
This match-up was probably the most interesting. The Republican representative was the most eloquent and passionate of the two debators while the Democratic representative was the most logic-driven debator. This would have fit well for a mock debate of presidential status compared to the vice-presidential status.
If there was a winner, I would have put Team Democrats as the winner by a slim margin. They had the most sound logic between the two (as a scientist). However, other people (the religous and those who are more driven by morals) would have considered the Republicans as the winner; or even a tie.
However, I was surprised as to how this whole debate went. There was a good discussion on the issues, and there weren't as many attacks as the presidential debate had last Thursday. This was also dispite the debate format of 2/1/30. There was also very little brow beating and "I art holier than thou" that I saw in high school where people tried to be politically correct or attempt to elevate themselves higher than others. It was certainly worth the attendance.
20041001
2004.09.30 Presidential Debate on Foreign Policy -- Running comments and conclusions
Started at 9:26
Stupid computer refused boot properly, so I'm starting in the middle of the debate
9:24
Good and the bad:
Kerry: he's doing well in attacking Bush. However, he isn't talking much about the details as to how he's going to approach foreign policy. Specifics. At times, he's also sacrificing time to answer the real questions and attacks Bush instead.
Bush: It looks like he did prepare for the debate, but he isn't giving any new messages. He's also going for the machoist stance on policies with "the offensive" and also for "free iraq, free this, free that," "Freedom's good this, freedom is good, that," etc.
9:29
It looks like the rules agreed on got broken. So much for not talking to each other.
9:31
Kerry missed a point to say that the general that the Bushies retired was retired _but_ they ditched the general's plan <300K troops, much less than wat was planned
9:32
Vs. Bush: UN is not back in Iraq helping with elections. The situation has been reported to be too unstable for UN forces to return to Iraq and Afghanastan.
9:36
Bush... he seems to have problems at the moment trying to keep up with Kerry in coming up with different points to support what he claims. He's repeating himself and is not making any new points to rebut Kerry or to even support himself on his own issues. Kerry is also repeating, but not as much as Bush by any means.
9:37
The cameramen seems to be biased in their camera shoots. They're giving a lot of dark profile shots of Kerry, and none of Bush.
9:39
KERRY: EXAMPLES EXAMPLES EXAMPLES!!! URANIUM IN UGANDA! ACTIONS IN THE UN! ARGH! (He's not hitting key points harder)
9:41
Kerry needs to be more stoic. He nods too much in response to Bush's responses. It's getting picked up by the cameras, while Bush doesn't nod. This might hurt him in the sense that he is agreeing to Bush's attacks and is planning to cover them up in his next response.
9:43
Bush, in response to Kerry's explanation, doesn't rebut his logic, but decides to attack his consistency... huh?
9:47
My God. Kerry's not going for Bush's Jugular! Unsafe areas in Iraq have been admitted by the administration. Claims that people there can't vote because of lack of safety, but will still go with voting process without counting the votes in those areas
9:48
Kerry's specifics in Iraq plan. Closing borders? How? Global plan is nice, but how can you close such a porous border? He hasn't gotten into any real concrete specifics.
Bush Rebuttal: His numbers are inflated in trained iraqi forces. Alawi is not a leader of Iraq, Bush. He's appointed by the US to lead country towards elections. There isn't much else in domestic policy that he has control over.
9:57
FINALLY Kerry hits the Jugular with Iraq and Hussein vs. bin Laden in attacking the US.
10:00
Bush is nit picking... And what treaties did you really sign? He makes no case and, instead, decides to talk about why he didn't agree to a treaty to create an international court to which the US would be under its jurisdiction
He paints the International Court as an evil international body? Unaccountable judges? That's total BS. Undersight by the UN would give it accountability.
OMG. KERRY WAS DENIED A RESPONSE TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT. NOOO!!!
10:07
Kerry was denied a response to Bush's response to respondn to N. Korea and Iran sanctions. It seems that Leherer is trying not to be leaning too much for Kerry, but it seems to be going too far and he is denying Kerry the chance to really break out.
10:09
Bush commits money to Uganda but no forces. What good is it when no security is available to help distribute the aid that is bought with the money?
10:12
Bush is pushing a presendency on emotion and gut feeling? What a joke. Where has logic reasoning and practical diplomacy gone?
10:17
Kerry's answer to the primary threat to the US is nuclear proliferation isn't the best answer. It seems to be more of a cold war idea if anything.
Kerry is also speaking too intelligently. He's running a really big risk that potential supporters that would switch sides don't really understand him.
Summaries of each person's conclusions on foreign policy:
Bush paints a picture of an evil, faceless enemy, and for the US to go at them
Bush has not laid out any plans for future foreign policy other than further fighting; unilateralism.. but still wants to build alliances? how is this possible?
Free iraq and afghanastan? He has only painted an evil enemy, and has claimed freedom in iraq and afghanastan
Pleads more for the hearts of americans compared to the logic.
Kerry promotes cooperation with allies in dealing with threats
Kerry is trying for peace; multilateralism; believes that Bush has botched up everything in foreign policy
Kerry cutting off finances to.. whom? wrt to terrorists?
Recap:
Kerry won the debate, but not decisively. He attacked Bush consistently on Bush's failures in his foreign policy and inconsistencies. He also reiterated certain points and positions that contrasted strongly against Bush's. And this was all done with great poise and with deliberate syntax. He was very concise, a stark contrast to his usual stump speeches on his campaign trail.
Bush, on the other hand, did not have the debating finesse that Kerry had and ended up repeating himself with with simple ideas and sentences, while stumbling frequently in trying to get his message out. At some times, he dodged the question completely, and nit-picked Kerry's responses to the arbitrator's questions. He also repeated certain personal facts and tried to pass them off without supporting them without hard numbers like Kerry did, identical to his stump speeches in his campaign rallies.
Despite Kerry's laudable and Bush's seemingly incompetent performances, Kerry did not deal a damaging blow to Bush. Frankly, if Kerry was firing on all gears, he could have torn Bush apart. Unfortunately, I think that Kerry held back because he didn't want to come across as mean or "unpatriotic." Also, the debate format of 2 minute answers prevented Kerry from gaining any ground, but it was perfect for Bush to iterate his views on Iraq and his foreign policy "successes." My prediction is that the polls won't shift very much since the candidates didn't get much of a chance to dig into each other to point out faults with each other's plans in foreign policy. Hell, not many foreign policy plans were laid out at all.
Anyway, the next debate is October 8. Unfortunately, I'll be missing about 1/3 of the debate because I'll be attending a perforance by the Capitol Steps, a political satire group who basically makes fun of everything you can think about the US and politics.
Until then...
Stupid computer refused boot properly, so I'm starting in the middle of the debate
9:24
Good and the bad:
Kerry: he's doing well in attacking Bush. However, he isn't talking much about the details as to how he's going to approach foreign policy. Specifics. At times, he's also sacrificing time to answer the real questions and attacks Bush instead.
Bush: It looks like he did prepare for the debate, but he isn't giving any new messages. He's also going for the machoist stance on policies with "the offensive" and also for "free iraq, free this, free that," "Freedom's good this, freedom is good, that," etc.
9:29
It looks like the rules agreed on got broken. So much for not talking to each other.
9:31
Kerry missed a point to say that the general that the Bushies retired was retired _but_ they ditched the general's plan <300K troops, much less than wat was planned
9:32
Vs. Bush: UN is not back in Iraq helping with elections. The situation has been reported to be too unstable for UN forces to return to Iraq and Afghanastan.
9:36
Bush... he seems to have problems at the moment trying to keep up with Kerry in coming up with different points to support what he claims. He's repeating himself and is not making any new points to rebut Kerry or to even support himself on his own issues. Kerry is also repeating, but not as much as Bush by any means.
9:37
The cameramen seems to be biased in their camera shoots. They're giving a lot of dark profile shots of Kerry, and none of Bush.
9:39
KERRY: EXAMPLES EXAMPLES EXAMPLES!!! URANIUM IN UGANDA! ACTIONS IN THE UN! ARGH! (He's not hitting key points harder)
9:41
Kerry needs to be more stoic. He nods too much in response to Bush's responses. It's getting picked up by the cameras, while Bush doesn't nod. This might hurt him in the sense that he is agreeing to Bush's attacks and is planning to cover them up in his next response.
9:43
Bush, in response to Kerry's explanation, doesn't rebut his logic, but decides to attack his consistency... huh?
9:47
My God. Kerry's not going for Bush's Jugular! Unsafe areas in Iraq have been admitted by the administration. Claims that people there can't vote because of lack of safety, but will still go with voting process without counting the votes in those areas
9:48
Kerry's specifics in Iraq plan. Closing borders? How? Global plan is nice, but how can you close such a porous border? He hasn't gotten into any real concrete specifics.
Bush Rebuttal: His numbers are inflated in trained iraqi forces. Alawi is not a leader of Iraq, Bush. He's appointed by the US to lead country towards elections. There isn't much else in domestic policy that he has control over.
9:57
FINALLY Kerry hits the Jugular with Iraq and Hussein vs. bin Laden in attacking the US.
10:00
Bush is nit picking... And what treaties did you really sign? He makes no case and, instead, decides to talk about why he didn't agree to a treaty to create an international court to which the US would be under its jurisdiction
He paints the International Court as an evil international body? Unaccountable judges? That's total BS. Undersight by the UN would give it accountability.
OMG. KERRY WAS DENIED A RESPONSE TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT. NOOO!!!
10:07
Kerry was denied a response to Bush's response to respondn to N. Korea and Iran sanctions. It seems that Leherer is trying not to be leaning too much for Kerry, but it seems to be going too far and he is denying Kerry the chance to really break out.
10:09
Bush commits money to Uganda but no forces. What good is it when no security is available to help distribute the aid that is bought with the money?
10:12
Bush is pushing a presendency on emotion and gut feeling? What a joke. Where has logic reasoning and practical diplomacy gone?
10:17
Kerry's answer to the primary threat to the US is nuclear proliferation isn't the best answer. It seems to be more of a cold war idea if anything.
Kerry is also speaking too intelligently. He's running a really big risk that potential supporters that would switch sides don't really understand him.
Summaries of each person's conclusions on foreign policy:
Bush paints a picture of an evil, faceless enemy, and for the US to go at them
Bush has not laid out any plans for future foreign policy other than further fighting; unilateralism.. but still wants to build alliances? how is this possible?
Free iraq and afghanastan? He has only painted an evil enemy, and has claimed freedom in iraq and afghanastan
Pleads more for the hearts of americans compared to the logic.
Kerry promotes cooperation with allies in dealing with threats
Kerry is trying for peace; multilateralism; believes that Bush has botched up everything in foreign policy
Kerry cutting off finances to.. whom? wrt to terrorists?
Recap:
Kerry won the debate, but not decisively. He attacked Bush consistently on Bush's failures in his foreign policy and inconsistencies. He also reiterated certain points and positions that contrasted strongly against Bush's. And this was all done with great poise and with deliberate syntax. He was very concise, a stark contrast to his usual stump speeches on his campaign trail.
Bush, on the other hand, did not have the debating finesse that Kerry had and ended up repeating himself with with simple ideas and sentences, while stumbling frequently in trying to get his message out. At some times, he dodged the question completely, and nit-picked Kerry's responses to the arbitrator's questions. He also repeated certain personal facts and tried to pass them off without supporting them without hard numbers like Kerry did, identical to his stump speeches in his campaign rallies.
Despite Kerry's laudable and Bush's seemingly incompetent performances, Kerry did not deal a damaging blow to Bush. Frankly, if Kerry was firing on all gears, he could have torn Bush apart. Unfortunately, I think that Kerry held back because he didn't want to come across as mean or "unpatriotic." Also, the debate format of 2 minute answers prevented Kerry from gaining any ground, but it was perfect for Bush to iterate his views on Iraq and his foreign policy "successes." My prediction is that the polls won't shift very much since the candidates didn't get much of a chance to dig into each other to point out faults with each other's plans in foreign policy. Hell, not many foreign policy plans were laid out at all.
Anyway, the next debate is October 8. Unfortunately, I'll be missing about 1/3 of the debate because I'll be attending a perforance by the Capitol Steps, a political satire group who basically makes fun of everything you can think about the US and politics.
Until then...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)