My $.02 on the debate this A.M.
Find a Conversation
My $.02 on the debate this A.M.
| Fri, 10-01-2004 - 9:15am |
So from what I got from the debate...
Bush is tired. (I can imagine that spending the day with hurricane victims and relief workers can be pretty draining, what did Kerry do all day? I can only imagine.)
Kerry did better than I expected, although, I completely disagree with him.
One thing really stood out...Kerry wants to deal one-on-one with Kim Jong Il and leave out important allies like China and South Korea, and yet says the war in Iraq is a bust b/c we don't have enough allied support?!?
Just shows me that Kerry will disagree with ANYTHING the President supports and support anything Bush disagrees with.
Hey, it'll give the "anybody but Bush" crowd a boner!

Pages
So does Kerry but he uses a lot more words. This isn't always the best thing (as we have seen) in this society of short attention spans and quick little sound bites. The Republicans have turned the sound bite into an art form and we can see how this has harmed Kerry in the past. He does not see the issues as only black and white with solutions that are only black and white.
<>
A lot of this is interpretation. I am equally as guilty as the next person in being influenced by how a person comes across. I find that Bush comes across as a spoiled frat boy that isn't a particularly deep thinker and is a little paranoid (and who is equally impressed with himself). I find Kerry to be thoughtful, compassionate and articulate and able to see more than one side of an issue.
<>
Perhaps I too am a victim of the North/South thing too. I've heard a number of times that most Americans would rather have a beer with Bush than with Kerry. Call me crazy, but I'd much rather have a beer with Kerry. After a few beers I love to talk about the deeper issues (how articulate I am is another story LOL). With Bush, I'd get pretty bored pretty fast and start hoping that the band would come on soon. With Kerry, I'd be inclined to suggest leaving when the band came and find a quieter place to continue the conversation.
It's not an either or situation. You can have bilateral talks and you can also set up summits or talks with an international group of representatives. One does not cancel out the other.
The talks including other nations would deal with slightly different and broader issues than those between the US and North Korea alone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1207864.stm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/themes/
With respect to North Korea, the real story: We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power.
Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here.
And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.
While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea.
That happened on this president's watch.
Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious, sort of, reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send.
LEHRER: I want to make sure -- yes, sir -- but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand -- the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.
You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?
BUSH: Right.
LEHRER: And you're willing to do it...
KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.
You raise a good point. Certainly today, there is much less trust for the US than there as been in the past. Certainly with the Bush administration there is practically no trust left that this administration will act wisely.
>>I don't like Kerry because, to me, he comes across as a pompous-ass who cannot make up his mind, who has no conviction, who will sell us out to France, Germany, etc. and who is incredibly impressed with himself. I don't find him impressive or inspirational. And maybe its because I'm southern, but his entire demeanor totally turns me off, probably the same way that Bush's "cowboy" demeanor bothers some northerners.<<
I can't agree or disagree with the pompass ass stuff, because that is personal opinion. I dislike George Bush for similar reasons that run rather deeply. As a gay woman in America, he is hateful to those like me. Bush doesn't bother me being a cowboy, I've nothing against the south... people are people and I like people... where they are from does not matter. The things that bother me are what was mentioned above, his saying he is doing good environmental things whilst he pays lip service to it, trying to blur the lines between religion and our government, trying to dictate to our allies instead of working with them, cutting funding for women's clinics overseas, the PBA ban (and nine guys behind him when he signed it), campaigning as a uniter and then proceeding to divide this country like it was in 1970, campaigning as a compassionate conservative who said same sex marriage was a states rights issue only to call for an amendment declaring us second class citizens, running up *huge* deficits whilst giving tax cuts to wealthy people who largely support him and in the process pays that bill forward to our children... I'll stop there.
As for flip flopping, Bush has his moments as well. A president should be open to change, any good manager should be.
Exactly!
C
Pages