Friday, October 01, 2004
Before I climb into my morning bath of hot blogs, I thought I'd record my own impression of last night's Kerry/Bush debate.
Overall, Kerry Kicked George Bushes noble rump. I'm sure others will see it differently, but those others are not the persons this debate could possibly influence. FOr swing voters with only a superficial familiarity with both candidates and the positions they put forward, Kerry was absolutely the winner.
My vote is beyond Kerry's capture...however, if I were mostly undecided and familiar only with the surface of the record and the issues, if I had not already been persuaded that, along with the foreign enemy, the real undermining force against victory in Iraq (and elsewhere) were naysayers on the left obsessed with ridding the country of George Bush, giving the enemy encouragement and serving as obstacles to prosecution of the war, I would be inclined to accept the impressions painted in the debate.
I've always said I would have no problem with Kerry's election, if he were actually the man he pretends to be, instead of the man he IS: a liar, a poser, an opportunist lacking in nearly every moral and intellectual quality I value. But anyone with only a surface knowlege of the arguments he made last night was more likely to be persuaded by him than Dubya.
Kerry seemed to be aided by that lecturn clock his aides were threatening to screwdriver off...it made Kerry *focus* and kept him from his natural tendency to ramble and double-back.
George Bush had no great stumble, but he WAS his ususal stumble-tongued self. Worse, and relied on repetition of key words to fill up his time, instead of the many persuasive arguments he had at his disposal but did not unleash on his opponent.
We were discussing Bushes many strengths, but oratorical handicaps, this morning at my breakfast table. My husband made me laugh: "Wouldn't it be great if, in a debate like this, George Bush, could have pinch-hitters for particular questions. "Now subsituting for George Bush, number 43, Mr. Christopher Hitchens!" Who would then proceed to mop up the floor with Kerry' lame ass.
Sure, Saddam was in a box. But there were hundreds of thousands of Iraquis trapped in that box. Where was the mention of the 200,OO0 Saddam murdered? And the riches he was siphoning off the oil-fo-food program? And why wasn't that corruption brought up as a reason to limit UN involvement? Where the mention that Saddam was about to get out of that box? What about the tremendous internation pressure to remove the sanctions, which would have allowed Saddam to take his oil-for-food riches and use them to re-invigorate his weapons development. He still had these programs waiting in the wings. And there can be no doubt he would have used them.
One more thing, if Leher is not now kicked off the top pf INDC Bills "most fair" list
I'm going to be mad. "No hackles raised?" what kind of question is THAT?
I guess I'll go take my blog-bath now, and collect some of my thoughts. Maybe steal some. :)
Overall, Kerry Kicked George Bushes noble rump. I'm sure others will see it differently, but those others are not the persons this debate could possibly influence. FOr swing voters with only a superficial familiarity with both candidates and the positions they put forward, Kerry was absolutely the winner.
My vote is beyond Kerry's capture...however, if I were mostly undecided and familiar only with the surface of the record and the issues, if I had not already been persuaded that, along with the foreign enemy, the real undermining force against victory in Iraq (and elsewhere) were naysayers on the left obsessed with ridding the country of George Bush, giving the enemy encouragement and serving as obstacles to prosecution of the war, I would be inclined to accept the impressions painted in the debate.
I've always said I would have no problem with Kerry's election, if he were actually the man he pretends to be, instead of the man he IS: a liar, a poser, an opportunist lacking in nearly every moral and intellectual quality I value. But anyone with only a surface knowlege of the arguments he made last night was more likely to be persuaded by him than Dubya.
Kerry seemed to be aided by that lecturn clock his aides were threatening to screwdriver off...it made Kerry *focus* and kept him from his natural tendency to ramble and double-back.
George Bush had no great stumble, but he WAS his ususal stumble-tongued self. Worse, and relied on repetition of key words to fill up his time, instead of the many persuasive arguments he had at his disposal but did not unleash on his opponent.
We were discussing Bushes many strengths, but oratorical handicaps, this morning at my breakfast table. My husband made me laugh: "Wouldn't it be great if, in a debate like this, George Bush, could have pinch-hitters for particular questions. "Now subsituting for George Bush, number 43, Mr. Christopher Hitchens!" Who would then proceed to mop up the floor with Kerry' lame ass.
Sure, Saddam was in a box. But there were hundreds of thousands of Iraquis trapped in that box. Where was the mention of the 200,OO0 Saddam murdered? And the riches he was siphoning off the oil-fo-food program? And why wasn't that corruption brought up as a reason to limit UN involvement? Where the mention that Saddam was about to get out of that box? What about the tremendous internation pressure to remove the sanctions, which would have allowed Saddam to take his oil-for-food riches and use them to re-invigorate his weapons development. He still had these programs waiting in the wings. And there can be no doubt he would have used them.
One more thing, if Leher is not now kicked off the top pf INDC Bills "most fair" list
I'm going to be mad. "No hackles raised?" what kind of question is THAT?
I guess I'll go take my blog-bath now, and collect some of my thoughts. Maybe steal some. :)
