Something occured to me while watching the second debate between Bush and Kerry.
Kerry is the guy that I wanted to be growing up: smooth, uber-rich, popular, with a seeming entitlement to the crown, and a way with words that makes you think that he knows what he's talking about. It's almost hypnotic, until you actually realize that he's an empty suit.
Bush was the guy I didn't want to be: incoherent, uber-rich, popular, an old boy's network get out of jail free card, and an advanced case of frat-boy gladhanding and down-home platitudes. In the election of 2000, before 9-11, I thought that this guy was definitely the wrong choice.
I was wrong.
I've read a lot of the left-leaning blogs claim that Kerry again won last night: they're wrong.
Darling wife Rue noted while we watched: "It's like sombody put his batteries in, or something. He's a different guy this time."
Again the style versus substance argument comes up. Like most of those guys I envied in high school, Kerry's hit a plateau. He's about to join the the ghosts of Democratic failure: McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. He'll be trotted out with them for the 10 minutes of shame when Hillary accepts the '08 nomination. Why? Because Democrats thought all they needed was someone who looked good and spoke well. What substantively different will Kerry do? Two debates and we still don't know because I don't think his party or his handlers even thought of the question. Their only goal appears to be "Beat Bush." And they'll again be wringing their hands, beating their heads against the wall screeching "why, why, WHY!?" again when November 3rd roles around.
An energized, almost coherent Bush, with tons of actual real substantive policy behind him will kill slick Mr. Flip-Flop in the polls. Because Mr. Flip-Flop really doesn't stand for anything, other than the acquisition of his own personal power.
And it's hard to believe someone who'll tell you ANYTHING you want to hear in order to get it.
Raging Kraut
I also said that it was like they downloaded Cheney into W.
I agree that Bush did better in this debate, I scored it about even. Kerry's biggest problem is that he did not know how to improvise, he tried to stay "on message" too much. He would finish answering a previous question, before he answered the current question, and he filled his alloted time when he could have been more succint. The best example of this was with the final question about three mistakes that Bush had made. When Bush declined to answer that, Kerry had two options 1) List three mistakes that Bush had made (eg Racing to War in Iraq, Have no plan for the Peace in Iraq, taking the focus off of Osama Bin Laden), or 2) Point out how dangerous it is to have someone in charge who doesn't analyse previous decisions to see if they had made mistakes, and doesn't learn from their mistakes).
Posted by on 10/10 at 06:15 PM
"on message"
What message?
I have to disagree. Kerry displays no convictions of his own. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, to the extent of frequently contradicting himself, or spewing nonsense albeit suavely, saying whatever it takes whether he believes it himself or not, for him to be president.
"Help is on the way."
What 'help'? What kind of patronizing message is that? He unfailingly undermines the efforts of the American Armed Forces and the Coalition at nearly every turn of phrase.
This time around Bush was relaxed, articulate and more importantly consistent.
Bush might have been consistent, but he was consistently wrong. Iraq and Saddam Hussein were not a threat. The sanctions were preventing him from getting WMD. Which country has an active nuclear program and proven ties to terrorists I-R-A-N. OK granted Bush was only off by a letter. As for undermining the US troops, lets storm into a country, fire that country's military so we have all these people with military training and no job milling around, and lets not secure the ammunition depots. I wonder why we are now fighting a guerilla war, and have suffered 10times the casualties after "Mission Accomplished" than before. To quote Kerry "Generals plan for the war, Presidents plan for the peace"
Posted by on 10/11 at 11:12 PM
Iran is a danger too.
As for Iraq, read the Duelfer report. No WMD's present, but skimming billions off of "oil for food", slipping the sanctions AND he was planning to maintain his wonderful network of scientists. Ya sure he wasn't a threat?
Of course everyone would scream about why nothing was done before Hussein would've tested his first bio or nuclear device.
Are you trying to say that Iran and Iraq are mutually exclusive threats? That's not logical.
Honestly, I realize that you've fallen into the "anyone but Bush" camp, but you honestly don't believe that Saddam WASN'T a threat?
I've never said that Bush was perfect, but compared to the shell game that Kerry is playing (I was for the war, no against it - I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it - I'll tell you what my secret plan for winning the peace is AFTER you elect me) at least you know where you stand with Bush.
And, Greg, you've now quoted John Kerry IN ADDITION to quoting Al Franken at me a couple of weeks ago on my own blog. I've listened to Air America: you're coming close to standing with the barking moonbats pal...
Iraq was not a threat. 12 years after sanctions were imposed, they did not have WMD. Why, because the sanctions were working. Saddam was trying to skim money from the "oil for food" programs to buy his way out the sanctions because they were working. If Bush had let the inspectors do their job, this war may have been avoided. That would have been a good thing, because most of the world is now pissed off at the US, and will not support them when the US is forced to go into Iran where the real threat is.
BTW I ensure I watch Fox News Sunday, and This Week With George Stephanopoulos, as well as catch the Daily Show when I can, so I can get all viewpoints before siding with someone on an issue.
My problem with Bush is that he looks at all issues in a black & white manner, which is good for making quick decisions, but doesn't help making good decisions.
Posted by on 10/12 at 08:20 PM
Now I know you're joking. He was skimming billions off of oil for food and that's somehow proof that sanctions were working?
Iran's a threat.
North Korea's a threat.
Iraq's a threat still, which is the sad part.
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
[Rue] on 01/24/07 11:09 : With bated breath I await your return to blogging. [go]
Gross Display of Most Naked Capitalism
Blogroll
Red Ensign Blogs for Victory!
-- One of the Original Red Ensigns carried by the Penticton 1st Volunteers. It was present at Vimy Ridge when our little Dominion stood up and became a nation worth fighting for...
What message?
I have to disagree. Kerry displays no convictions of his own. He says whatever he thinks people want to hear, to the extent of frequently contradicting himself, or spewing nonsense albeit suavely, saying whatever it takes whether he believes it himself or not, for him to be president.
"Help is on the way."
What 'help'? What kind of patronizing message is that? He unfailingly undermines the efforts of the American Armed Forces and the Coalition at nearly every turn of phrase.
This time around Bush was relaxed, articulate and more importantly consistent.
As for Iraq, read the Duelfer report. No WMD's present, but skimming billions off of "oil for food", slipping the sanctions AND he was planning to maintain his wonderful network of scientists. Ya sure he wasn't a threat?
Of course everyone would scream about why nothing was done before Hussein would've tested his first bio or nuclear device.
Are you trying to say that Iran and Iraq are mutually exclusive threats? That's not logical.
Honestly, I realize that you've fallen into the "anyone but Bush" camp, but you honestly don't believe that Saddam WASN'T a threat?
I've never said that Bush was perfect, but compared to the shell game that Kerry is playing (I was for the war, no against it - I voted for the 87 billion, before I voted against it - I'll tell you what my secret plan for winning the peace is AFTER you elect me) at least you know where you stand with Bush.
And, Greg, you've now quoted John Kerry IN ADDITION to quoting Al Franken at me a couple of weeks ago on my own blog. I've listened to Air America: you're coming close to standing with the barking moonbats pal...
BTW I ensure I watch Fox News Sunday, and This Week With George Stephanopoulos, as well as catch the Daily Show when I can, so I can get all viewpoints before siding with someone on an issue.
My problem with Bush is that he looks at all issues in a black & white manner, which is good for making quick decisions, but doesn't help making good decisions.
Iran's a threat.
North Korea's a threat.
Iraq's a threat still, which is the sad part.