My American friends may not take this very well, but... your candidates suck! Canadian politics is also renowned for its suckiness, but at least when we suck, we don't take the whole world with us.
Watching the tail end of your Presidential debate was depressing beyond words.
I'm going to start with Iran, because, unbelievably after all this time, neither candidate addressed it - or even seems to know what to do about it.
They talked of inconsequential things, of the charades of multilateral talks that Iran laughs at even as they are conducted. Laughs at and harbours al-Qaeda, and openly declares its willingness to build atomic bombs that could one day send the Mid-East up in literal flames, or touch off a round of regional proliferation that could end the War on Terror or force it into a Total War.
Do either of them discuss the stakes? No. Do either of them propose anything besides the current mindless pantomime? No. Military strikes, if necessary? A sustained 'soft power' campaign to overthrow the Iranian regime? We hear nothing. Do either of them even note that more may be required at some point? No.
Kerry never will - his policy is to work with Iran's mullahs, not confront them. They're 4-6 months from the bomb, and he's talking about sanctions. While worrying about what Osama might say if he does anything around the world, and trying to win some sort of bizarre global popularity contest. What. An. Idiot.
But Bush says nothing either, and narrows his options on Iran going forward because he isn't preparing the public. He dodges a direct question about his own damn pre-emption doctrine.
This debate might as well have been a big neon sign. The mullahs of Iran are going to be allowed to build nukes, and the USA will do nothing of substance to stop them.
If this is the best you guys can offer for leadership, we're screwed. And it gets worse.
Neither candidate talks about the seismic changes in our world since 9/11 - the foundations of every specific issue. Read the foreign policy section of Tony Blair's Wednesday speech. This is how it's done:
"Do I know I'm right?
Judgements aren't the same as facts. Instinct is not science. I'm like any other human being, as fallible and as capable of being wrong.
I only know what I believe.
There are two views of what is happening in the world today.
One view is that there are isolated individuals, extremists, engaged in essentially isolated acts of terrorism. That what is happening is not qualitatively different from the terrorism we have always lived with.
If you believe this, we carry on the same path as before 11th September. We try not to provoke them and hope in time they will wither.
The other view is that this is a wholly new phenomenon, worldwide global terrorism based on a perversion of the true, peaceful and honourable faith of Islam; that's its roots are not superficial but deep, in the madrassehs of Pakistan, in the extreme forms of Wahabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia, in the former training camps of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan; in the cauldron of Chechnya; in parts of the politics of most countries of the Middle East and many in Asia; in the extremist minority that now in every European city preach hatred of the West and our way of life.
If you take this view, you believe September 11th changed the world; that Bali, Beslan, Madrid and scores of other atrocities that never make the news are part of the same threat and the only path to take is to confront this terrorism, remove it root and branch and at all costs stop them acquiring the weapons to kill on a massive scale because these terrorists would not hesitate to use them.
Likewise take the first view, then when you see the terror brought to Iraq you say: there, we told you; look what you have stirred up; now stop provoking them.
But if you take the second view, you don't believe the terrorists are in Iraq to liberate it.
They're not protesting about the rights of women - what, the same people who stopped Afghan girls going to school, made women wear the Burka and beat them in the streets of Kabul, who now assassinate women just for daring to register to vote in Afghanistan's first ever democratic ballot, though four million have done so?
They are not provoked by our actions; but by our existence. They are in Iraq for the very reason we should be.
They have chosen this battleground because they know success for us in Iraq is not success for America or Britain or even Iraq itself but for the values and way of life that democracy represents.
They know that. That's why they are there.
That is why we should be there and whatever disagreements we have had, should unite in our determination to stand by the Iraqi people until the job is done. And, of course, at first the consequence is more fighting.
But Iraq was not a safe country before March 2003. Few had heard of the Taliban before September 11th 2001. Afghanistan was not a nation at peace.
So it's not that I care more about foreign affairs than the state of our economy, NHS, schools or crime.
It's simply that I believe democracy there means security here; and that if I don't care and act on this terrorist threat, then the day will come when all our good work on the issues that decide people's lives will be undone because the stability on which our economy, in an era of globalisation, depends, will vanish."
That was Tony's version. The frame, the stakes, the situation, the necessity. Where freedom fits, as well as why we fight for it.
There are shorter versions you could use, American versions. Hell, you could crib them right from the blogosphere. But without that, you don't inspire. Without it, you don't have a foundation for talking about our world. Without it, you cannot explain to the American people what is really at stake when you discuss Iran, or North Korea, or why Sudan may or may not matter. Or anything.
They talked about North Korea as if in the abstract, no explanation of why a nuclear North Korea matters, or the nature and goals of its regime. Without that - and it can be done in 5 sentences - the rest is a discussion with no grounding.
We saw this again and again, on issue after issue.
You folks down in America need to find someone who can speak, damnit. You don't have it. You won't have it.
Bush is a cowboy. Cowboys are great, because they value action - but we need someone who can sing, too, and he ain't it. Cheney? Not exactly Mr. Inspiration. Kerry? He doesn't get it, any of it, and can't even keep his own story straight. Senator Lightweight? Please.
You need someone who can speak to mainstream America, and move them, and get them to follow for the long haul instead of leaving them wondering. You need someone who can speak abroad, and speak powerfully.
It's an important part of the war, a critical part. You can't outsource this to the damn blogosphere.
Will clear, powerful oratory convince the Euroweenie coalition of the craven, the bribed, and the malicious? No. We know that. But it may set a fire and a spine in those who oppose them. It may give us a fighting chance again in that remnant of the West that is not yet lost, but is not called to find its bearings except through the direct malice of our enemies.
That fighting chance is worth something. Clarity on issues like Iran is worth something. The stakes in this war are huge. And the options before us matter. Watching tonight, you wouldn't know any of that.
Yes, I'm angry. Maybe when all is said and done, I'll regret writing these things. Maybe I'll feel better in the morning, after all.
But I doubt it.
--- UPDATES ---
- Good stuff in Winds' comments. Including my thoughts the next morning.
- Jeff Jarvis: "The real bottom line: Neither candidate is good enough. I'm not undecided. I'm unhappy."
- Perhaps not quite as unhappy as James Lileks, though. This is what happens when the context is not provided by the candidates, James. We have the debates that drive you crazy.
- Ace of Spades HQ reminds us that we had another leader who can really speak, and think. Jose Maria Anzar's Georgetown speech on terrorism is excellent.
You're exactly right. We need leaders of words AND action.
Our current president is not a man of words. Our last one was not a man of action (of the Presidential kind, as opposed to the cheerleaders-under-ther-bleachers kind).
It's time to bring Reagan back.
Also a Canadian, I can't help thinking that there has to be somebody else stepping up soon. No? Oh oh.I dislike the Bush approach to the problem terrorism poses...Iraq is a diversion and the World will pay big but the alternative in Kerry inspires nothing in me. A decent man but leader of the free world? I just don't see it.
Joe,
I just wanted to say, that I hear you are saying. I hear what Tony Blair is saying. I hadn't read that exact speech by Tony Blair, and the quote you use, communicates your fear for the world, and communicates the threat that matters to you, very clearly.
What you are talking about is a point of view that isn't political. It's not left, it's not right, it's not liberal, it's not conservative.
It's getting right to a fundamental assessment of what the major threat in the world is.
I would say that most people who think seriously about these issues would AGREE that this is the major threat for the world, and democracy in general. Religous totalism and fanaticism is a serious threat that MUST be dealt with.
So I hear you, but again, the STRATEGY and TACTICS to best deal with this threat, are disagreed upon, among serious and sincere people. You have a certain view of the correct strategy - and the tactics can change. But the differing views among those that DO view the Islamic threat seriously, should not be flippantly or contemptously dismissed, or made fun of, but engaged openly and robustly.
Because it is too important to do otherwise.
I probably should have left the second point off, because again, the main comment I wanted to make is that this post actually made me understand the sincerity of where you are coming from - even if that sincerity gets colored at times by partisanship.
We get 50 choices for Miss America and only 2 for President, what the heck is up with that?
Hmm...I wouldn't say our two candidates are, uh, at the same level as Canadians. But they both sucked in the debate. You're right about that.
The only "clarity" of vision I heard was the discussion about North Korea. I think Kerry is nuts to think about returning to bilateral negotiations. One thing Bush has accomplished is to get the Chinese involved.
On Iraq? I don't think either one has a clue what to do other than pour more money into the effort and offer sacrificial lambs on a regular basis. Unfortunately I fear the "lambs" will be young men and women wearing American military uniforms.
Kerry probably "won." So? John McCain sounded presidential in several interviews after the debate (he agreed with Bush BTW on North Korea negotiaions). And McCain's views? He was pretty luke warm about the whole affair. I expected him to support Bush a bit more, but he sounded a bit bored. Like me.
I sure glad Kerry has never "wilted" in his life. He might be successful as the president of the California Lettuce Growers Assn.
BTW, what's a "mistake in how I talked about the war" mean? Is Kerry, the Senator and great debater, that bad when it comes to simple grammar? Or does he mean he screwed up politically and would like to retract his comments about voting against the funds allocation?
I don't recall the specific comment but Bush one time let his voice trail off so bad that his real point got lost in a mumble.
Considering the threat of terrorism I think we should all be very worried about the future. The election may make one side or the other happy, but I don't plan on being happy after the election. Period.
"My American friends may not take this very well..."
It's OK. We're quite used to being pissed on from the peanut gallery.
You weren't looking for "received pronunciation" from a couple of American politicians were you?
All in all, I think Kerry gave the performance of his elite lifetime and Bush looked preoccupied. Bush actually won on substance. Bush wins on body language too [but you gotta be Joe-SixPack and native born to grok that. Forget the words, this was subliminal in a very American way.] The mainstream media, excepting Fox, will proclaim a Kerry victory and Bush supporters, worried, will make damn sure to get out to vote.
Surely you didn't expect Bush to announce we are going to nuke Iran on November 3, did you?
Funny, I thought they both conducted themselves with honor and seriousness, despite the annoying repetitions.
Hey, who's the Prime Minister of Canada now, anyways?
I absolutely agree about Tony. That speech is miles above anything that could ever come from either US candidate. I'd vote for Blair regardless of what party he led.
I'm sorry you were disappointed with the debate, Joe. You said you wanted something serious about Iran. Well, Kerry said we should have given them some nuclear fuel, just to see what they did with it. That sounds pretty serious to me.
Joe, Stop rubbing it in. Can I write in my cats?
In my opinion Kerry didn't do much to win over the undecided. Bush's point re. Kerry's negativity about the war undermining his ability to lead allies was a strong and easy to understand position. I think undecided voters saw nothing from Kerry to put them at ease on that issue. Anyone know what the topic for the next debate is supposed to be? Kerry may score if it has nothing to do with WoT or Iraq/Afghanistan.
Thank you for pointing out a reality of democratic republicanism, that we won't always have rhetorical giants on tap in any particular election. But that just means that the rest of the world has a bigger obligation than it's recently thought. It needs to cultivate enough power, enough good leaders of their own so that they can lead. This isn't something that is fixable in the US. The execrable quality of leadership, the miniscule amount of money devoted to security, all that is squarely on your own shoulders.
The US is likely to vote Bush and we'll get worse words and better action because of it. There are probably a hundred different countries which could elect a rhetorician in chief of the free world to complement Bush. Blair sometimes seems like he's running for the job but that's not enough. Where is everybody else?
It's morning.
Xixi, Klaatu and TM Lutas are all in sync with where I'm at, and many others made good points. Yes, Bush gave Kerry more than a few necessary and serious body shots. The bit where Kerry talked about what Osama was saying, and Bush replied that you don't make policy around what Osama will say, was devastating. The points about Kerry's dissing of actual U.S. allies and his "wrong war..." rhetoric, juxtaposed with his claims he'll use superior diplomacy to get other nations into Iraq, were also telling. You could come away from the debates more impressed with Kerry personally, but you can't come away believing he has what it takes. My undecided friends? Still undecided after they watched the debate.
And I did get the body language thing - Bush does "regular American" & "Texas cowboy" very well, and it makes a lot of people comfortable with him. While triggering hostility in others, I might add.
Kerry, in contrast, has no archetype. He tries to step into the JFK "charismatic, smart eastern noblesse oblige" mold, but it doesn't fit. That's about 1/3 of his "inauthenticity" problem, and it isn't fixable. Bill Clinton, who did "roguish good ol' boy" + "Daniel Webster" to a T, can't help him there.
Kerry conducted himself with honour, but couldn't get out of the holes he has built for himself in order to be credible. He showed no sign that he gets what Tony says above, and every sign that mentally he's still in Vietnam. And repeating "I have a plan" and "I'll do it right" over and over does not = a plan, or the ability to do it right.
The thing is, Bush didn't reassure on that score either. If you've watched W. for any length of time, you know he does get what Tony says above. But none of that came through last night, and in terms of "what's next" on some very big issues - we got bupkes. Will "better action" be good enough? I don't know, and anyone watching to make up their mind could not know.
As for Canada, hey, I tried last election. Maybe you did too, Flit - and even so we're better off with PM Paul Martin than 'Jean Cretin'. A little.
It would be nice to imagine that Canada or Europe could begin to really lead and step up to their responsibilities, but they're in dreamland, the capabilities aren't really there, and the clock is ticking. It's not going to happen in time.
So, to my American friends... we're going to keep working hard out here, but the reality is that it's still mostly on you. It isn't fair, or right, but that's how it is.
You, as a country, are stronger than your candidates. The candidates themselves may not be rhetorical giants, but the U.S. system has often had them elsewhere. Y'all need to find them, and give them more of a stage - while taking TML's point, and making sure that nothing is too good for allied leaders abroad who show vision & promise in this department.
It's an important part of the war - and one that I'm not sure either candidate really understands.
I feel the need to address a criticism of Bush that Andrew Sullivan and others have leveled, and Kerry brought it up last night. How exactly do you secure the borders of a country? Who in the world actually does this successfully? Kerry criticized Bush about our borders and the borders of Iraq. I'm perfectly willing to criticize Bush but that seems like an incredibly difficult if not somewhat impossible job in Iraq. We do a lousy job of it in our own country, administration after administration. I'd love for someone to make a specific case on that issue so I could actually judge Bush's performance.
I am concerned about containers coming into our ports not being searched. (I'd like to remind everyone that the mayor of Baltimore said he was more afraid of Bush than terrorists, just to make you all nervous early in the morning.) I think Kerry was smart to bring it up.
Shoot Joe,
I give you praise for an honest post, and the next morning I check in, you are back to partisanship.
Ah well.
At any rate, Bush clearly did NOT "win on body language", as any of the post-polling will tell you. At many moments he was...petulant, I suppose is the best word, to use. And that petulance does not become a president.
To not admit that, is simply not being straight.
Joe: I agree with most of your points. However, in a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea, I'll go with GW. He needs better speech writers, though. I'm always shocked when North Korea is raised as an issue, because no one seems to get that our options there are so extrememly limited. Lil Kim is already in Club Nuke. And Iran? Gosh, we're tied to the train tracks and no one wants to talk about it!
I was interested not just in the body language, but in the physical appearances. Kerry just looks strange. The extreme height and the highly doliocephalic head have to put him outside the comfort zone of some viewers, in the purely "looks like our tribe" sense. At least he abandoned the 'orangle glow'.
JC,
Read my comments again.
Didn't say Bush won on body language. Just noted that I got what he was doing, and pointed out something about really successful American politicians that Bush has (and Clinton had, and Reagan had) and Kerry does not (and W.'s father did not). I also pointed out that it's a double-edged sword for W.
And exactly what part of "Bush didn't reassure on that score either" and "Will "better action" be good enough? I don't know, and anyone watching to make up their mind could not know" (that's WRT Bush) and "You, as a country, are stronger than your candidates" is part of a partisan screed?
Kerry's personal authenticity problem and weaknesses on substance are real, substantial, and widely discussed. Non-partisanship does not demand that one ignore them. Reading around the centrist section of the blogosphere says similar things - Kerry looked good, probably won narrowly, but didn't convince any fence sitters. Why not? The substantive shots were telling, and folks still don't feel like there was much 'there' there.
But Bush, for all the shots he got in, didn't convince people that he has a clear approach himself other than "keep working at it." That's a safe incumbent answer because his speeches, policies, et. al. give us a broader basis for judgment and understanding, but we all needed more. Deserved more.
I wrote this post yesterday before the debate
(Which post also includes the full text of Blair's speech)
And this one after the debate
Unfortunately, (I guess) our best "speakers" are not willing to be politicians.
Maybe we should petition for a green card and speedy naturalization for Blair in 2008.
:o)
--H
Jinn,
Kerry didn't do all that badly with body language. His advisers must have told him to smile more, because he did. Got a pretty good smile, actually, and the demeanor was serious and confident. That wasn't his problem.
Bush will do in a pinch.
I'd say we are severely pinched at this time.
Why not outsource the articulation of policy to the bloggers? Bloggers are doing a pretty good job of it.
When I want articulation I go to England. Their system seems to produce better talkers. (Churchill, Thatcher, Blair vs Silent Cal. Coolidge).
Look at the plus side. If Bush is confusing our friends think of his effect on our enemies.
Well any way I'm reminded of the Lincoln story about Grant. Some one was complaing about Grant's drinking habits. Lincoln suggested that the complainer find out what Grant was drinking so he could send each of his other commanders a barrel of the same. Why? Because Grant fights.
So at this time of war I'll take the inarticulate fighters over the articulate quitters.
Joe, Actually, his body language was as good as I've ever seen it. :)
It is the physical things about him that he can't change, like height and skull shape and bone structure. I always thought being tall was better, but that is not true, too far outside the norms is just as bad as being short.
I don't know if this has been studied much. I'll have to research it.
There was some survey work on which of the two candidates was more physically appealing to women, and Bush scored much higher. I don't think Kerry is appealing genetic material myself.
Bush was terrible, IMHO.
That is all :-)
BTW, new URL: Eurabian Times
Kerry's archetype? Sir Percival Blankney. Bush's, The Scarlet Pimpernel
As a great American leader do you have in mind FDR who said in October 1940:
"And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again:
Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores.
The purpose of our defense is defense."
The American people are not sold on this war. They do not understand the larger war we are in. It is all well and good to say Bush should be educating them, but that is an immense job, as demonstrated by the absence of such understanding in the aftermath of 9/11. And just as in 1940, there is an election to be won. And just as in 1940 the President will only be able to convince the vast majority of Americans of the threat our enemy represents after it has been demonstrated by the enemy. What is astounding to me is that 9/11 was not a sufficient demonstration.
Bush also knows that after a sufficient demonstration of our enemy's intent and capacity, there will not need to be a substantial debate about Shemanizing that enemy. America's revulsion at being imperial or even being seen to be imperial is preventing it from taking appropriate pre-emptive action to defend itself from an enemy that seeks to destroy it.
American, like most democracies, get the leaders they deserve. Who they turn out to be is more of a commentary on the human condition. What requires explanation is how Great Britain can turn out Churchills and Blairs.
Kerry's archetype? Sir Percival Blankney. Bush's, The Scarlet Pimpernel
As a great American leader do you have in mind FDR who said in October 1940:
"And while I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again:
Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars. They are going into training to form a force so strong that, by its very existence, it will keep the threat of war far away from our shores.
The purpose of our defense is defense."
The American people are not sold on this war. They do not understand the larger war we are in. It is all well and good to say Bush should be educating them, but that is an immense job, as demonstrated by the absence of such understanding in the aftermath of 9/11. And just as in 1940, there is an election to be won. And just as in 1940 the President will only be able to convince the vast majority of Americans of the threat our enemy represents after it has been demonstrated by the enemy. What is astounding to me is that 9/11 was not a sufficient demonstration.
Bush also knows that after a sufficient demonstration of our enemy's intent and capacity, there will not need to be a substantial debate about Shemanizing that enemy. America's revulsion at being imperial or even being seen to be imperial is preventing it from taking appropriate pre-emptive action to defend itself from an enemy that seeks to destroy it.
American, like most democracies, get the leaders they deserve. Who they turn out to be is more of a commentary on the human condition. What requires explanation is how Great Britain can turn out Churchills and Blairs.
Whatever happens it is going to be an interesting ride. I really didn't expect to hear much in the way of policy statements from these debates, not enough time.
Sorry for the double post.
Jinnderella,
Kerry doesn't do anything for me, personally (I think my girlfriend will be pleased to hear that).
Edwards is the only guy in this race who rates on the female appaearance scale, but then so did Dan Quayle. Especially in times like these, I think the subliminal to look for is "father figure," not "mate material". And I suspect that at some level, that one even crosses genders. Both candidates did OK there.
Colt,
Bush's debate demeanor would end his political career in the UK, because you have a very different set of archetypes and expectations. It will also hurt Bush in some parts of America, but in other parts it will actually work for him. You've got to live next door to them to grok it.
Overall?
I could give a damn about any of this. In the end, it's trivia. The truly important stuff was missing from the debate. It's still missing from the campaign as a whole. And the situation we face is too f---n important for that.
M. Simon:
Look at the plus side. If Bush is confusing our friends think of his effect on our enemies.
Writing on your own blog has sharpened up your rhetoric!
Joe:
Good point. Even still, I think we all know Bush could have done far better.
Colt,
That's certainly a key thrust of my post, yes. We all could have done far better, but the nominating process is what it is. Makes me think fondly of Vandeervecken's quip
Joe,
I could have been clearer in my post.
I was responding to this, only:
"And I did get the body language thing - Bush does "regular American" & "Texas cowboy" very well, and it makes a lot of people comfortable with him. While triggering hostility in others, I might add."
I was simply saying that this wasn't true - Bush's body language was petulant.
Also, to be clear, I have NO problem with you being partisan. I should have put more of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge", in there, to make it clear my post was "faux regret". Be as partisan as you wish to be! We live in free countries, this is what we are fighting to protect.
What I have STRENUOUSLY objected to is the linking of partisanship/security, that happens. The extreme, extreme example of this is "a vote for a democrat is vote for weak-kneed lily-livered Osama lovers, who want americans to bow down before mullahs"(Moolahs? MOW-Lahs? C'mon, help me out here!)
We disagree on Bush's body language, then.
Unfortunately, JC, partisanship IS linked to security these days. I agree, Blair's eloquent position is NOT inherently right-wing, or left wing. Even the Left, beyond liberalism, has people like Norm Geras, and Harry, and Walzer, and others. But they are finding themselves in conflict with many of their brethren on the Left in the current war - and many among the set Americans call "liberals" as well.
I wish it wasn't so, but I can't pretend it away. The Rockefeller memo in the intelligence committee. Daschle in the 2002s lamenting the fact that the party had to talk about the war, when it would rather be discussing other things. Terry M. praising Moore's film with many, many Democrat elected representatives in enthusiastic attendance. Kerry's quotes about our allies. Kerry's "wrong war..." quote on Iraq (but he'll convince lots more allies to join us in the wrong war!), Jimmy Carter (!) as a leading figure at this year's convention. Recall the Hurlburt article "War Torn" from our previous exchanges. Etc. Etc.
There are some, like Biden, who are still sensible and constructive. Graham got a bad rap, but he was indisputably serious and had important things to say. They are the exception, not the rule.
Large sections of the Democratic Party activist base falls into Blair's first category, at the very least (the Moore-ons go well beyond that into outright anti-Americanism). Many don't get the threat - it's a distraction to them. Many don't think it IS a war. Others think it's about asking "why do they hate us?" instead of "how will we defeat them?" To the point that they became a running joke on the right-wing side of the blogosphere... and provoked a second wave of exodus from the Democratic Party post-9/11. Totten, Roger Simon, Jeff Jarvis - indeed, large sections of the blogosphere - come from that exodus.
That's reality.
If that characterization is uncomfortable, then take back the Democratic Party and make recognition of the threat, seriousness about American Security, and seriousness about this war the rule and not the exception.
If you can.
And we'd like to help... if we can. It's a formidable task, and for now all we can do is try to welcome those who are serious, and spark good discussions with interesting information. But I'll also point out the problem children within the liberal-left (and right - righty isolationists get theirs too). Just as Geras, Cooper, Walzer, Aaronovitch, Burchill, and others on the Left do.
---
RE: "moo-lahs"... it may not be the technically correct pronounciation, but it certainly fits the ones in Iran. I must admit, Bush's promounciation amused me last night in its unintentional appropriateness.
I notice no one has disputed my "Bush will fight" point.
That is the election.
BTW my First Mate who generally does not keep too close an eye on politics (she pretty much is a Bush supporter this election - Gore in the last) was revolted by Kerry's stance on Iraq.
We live in fly-over fly-over country (about 60 mi west of O'Hare). Kerry is not doing well here at all. We are Reformed Jewish so Bush's stance on church state relations is no help for him here and yet my mate likes him.
Actually, I'm told by someone with a basic knowledge of Farsi that "moo-lahs" is more correct than "mull-ahs."
Cool! Maybe we should start spelling it that way, too:
"The Moolahs of Iran"
Has a nice ring to it.
I notice no one has disputed my "Bush will fight" point.
I hope you're not deluding yourself into thinking Bush has the slightest idea of what to do about Iraq.
What's the plan? Is it too complex to be articulated by Bush, but nevertheless brilliant and in existence?
Is it secret? Does it not exist?
At least Kerry's not afraid of articulating ideas. Bush is so scared of appearing weak he can't even allow himself to admit that things are going badly. And so he looks weak anyway.
Give me a fighter who knows what he's doing. Bush doesn't have a clue.
Merriam-Webster gives two accepted pronunciations in English for "mullah". The first rhymes with "mull" as in "mulled wine". The second rhymes with "bull". "Moo-lah" as in money is, perhaps, a little far off the mark.
I'm not sure I want to live in a world where every statement from our candidates is a gem, every debate an occasion to marvel at the eloquence, every speech a masterpiece.
I would prefer simple, straight talk.
I don't want to see an electorate that votes for candidate A because they always know what to say and how to say it, even if they are right. That is too close to a cult of personality for my liking.
I understand that much of the yearning for this type of leader is not so much for them to convince us, (for we always choose our candidates based on positions, goes without saying ;) ) but to convince those less accepting of our reasoning to choose our side.
I would rather live in a world where the core values of the republic are so ensconced that in spite of the rhetoric we always instinctively choose the right candidate for the time, regardless of their speaking abilities.
The world of eloquent campaigns implies a world built on perceptions and branding; the world of republican (small r) values implies an educated and active electorate.
I think we are somewhere in between, and my feeling as to where we are heading varies day by day.
When I read Tony Blair's excellent explanation I don't envy Great Britain its leader, I thank Al Gore for the internet and the capability to find the eloquence when I do need it.
That was a painful 90 minutes - both candidates are such ghastly public speakers!
I'm not a big fan of either candidate, but Kerry's tendency to either support terrible foreign policy (when speaking clearly) or to imply that he's just be smarter about it than Bush (the rest of the time) is really getting old. Bush seemed awfully defensive yesterday though, and I don't think countering with some strong leadership bluster would've exactly hurt him in this debate.
My personal lowlight of the evening was Kerry calling for bilateral talks between the US and N. Korea, and criticizing Bush's multilateral approach... talk about defining a platform in purely oppositional terms! Now that's chutzpah. IMO, Kerry's either too naive to play the geopolitical strategy game, or too contemptuous of US voters to ever wholeheartedly support (I may still have to hold my nose and vote anti-R though - as a mad scientist, I'm particularly angry about the bioethics council).
Jinnderella - everytime I see Kerry I'm thinking borderline Marfan Syndrome. Worked for Lincoln, eh?
I think the United States would benefit from having "Question Time." I love watching Tony Blair joust with the opposition. Being forced to defend your policies and the results thereof week in an week out makes one a far better communicator and allows for a more honest debate. I also think it would spread out the political risk of making a "gaffe," and therefore get both sides off of their talking points due to the sheer volume of back and forth.
"My American friends may not take this very well, but... your candidates suck! Canadian politics is also renowned for its suckiness, but at least when we suck, we don't take the whole world with us."
Hey Joe, a few points:
1. Do you think we here in the USA like the idea that it always has to be us that cleans up the mess? Right now there are babys dieing in Darfur. Roger Simon and other (americans) point this out daily. There's a lot of attraction (on both the right and the left) here in the good ol' US of A to simply say "F**k the world - let's leave the whole damn thing alone." If you think that the USA can be a help in places like Darfur, then your post is not particularly helpful, either north of the border or south of it.
2. Speaking of the Darfur genocide, I'm sure that Canada is acting, well, canadian. Meaning a bunch of well meaning hand wringing along with a healthy dose of "don't piss off Quebec". Not sure why Quebec wouldn't oppose genocide, but this seems likely to slow down any substantive canadian response. I guess what I'm saying is that you can't just be snarky if you don't ante up.
3. Of course our candidates suck. Duh. This has been true for at least two decades. What's your point? It's easy for you to get a vote - come on down! Or get your own government more involved with actually fixing the problems in the world. Otherwise, shut the heck up.
Love your country, love visiting, love working with canadians - you're like americans, only nicer. And less effective.
Just don't cop the "You guys are taking the world down" attitude.
Please remember - Bush has said, over and over again again, and did so during the debates, that, when all is said and done, the U.S. "will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons". For whatever else you may hold against him, you have to agree that Bush does what he says he will do. Bush has made these statements in a very understated way and I believe that this is because of the election season. However, I have no doubts that Bush (perhaps with the help of Israel) will carry through on his words if it becomes necessary.
I agree praktike.
After listening to all the fuss about the rules for the debate (practically a book the same size as one for playing American football) and watching the debate it became painfully obvious to me that television and pundits were and still are most interested in cute brown or baby blue eyes (forget substance I want charisma). (Jinderella There is a study out there that has been done concerning asymmetrical looks i.e. why all the good looking guys get all the gorgeous girls)
Here’s a play by play by commentators:
Was it a dog and pony show? Absolutely no one bothered to considered the content of what was said until a day later. The Senator was poised and well rehearsed wearing the latest fashion and hair immaculately coifed. He had style, he was well spoken and above all he had presence. The President looked tired, he wasn’t on his game and he even seemed down right irritated.
When we treat our debates like football games this is what you can expect from the media and commercialization.
Now the content as best I could determine.
The Senator
He believes this is the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time.
He compares Iraq to his beliefs formed by his service and actions during and after his return from Vietnam.
He says we’re their now (in Iraq) so he won’t cut and run.
He says he wants multilateral support and the UN should be the commander and chief.
He believes the war is too expensive and the money should be spent on social programs.
He says he’ll do everything in his power to ensure victory in Iraq.
He firmly believes in diplomacy.
He believes we should never wage war unless it passes a global test.
He says he will continue the policy of hunting down and killing the terrorists.
He wants bilateral versus multilateral talks with N. Korea concerning nuclear weapons.
He wants sanctions on Iran concerning nuclear weapons.
He believes multilateral diplomacy in Iran is a failure because the US isn’t involved.
He believes the greatest threat we face is nuclear proliferation?
Questions.
If the Senator is so committed to his personal belief of wrong war, wrong place, wrong time how can he possibly be heart felt and committed to a victory in Iraq?
If the UN does something in Iraq he doesn’t agree with will the Senator do?
Is he willing to lead the American populace and troops as though they were lemmings in a war to what he perceives as their ultimate demise (wrong war, wrong place, wrong time)?
What is the global test?
When the Senator is presented with evidence of terrorists in countries that are indifferent to diplomacy what will he do?
Why is multilateral diplomacy concerning nukes not good for N. Korea?
When diplomacy fails in Russia, Pakistan, N. Korea or any other country concerning nuclear armament and proliferation what will the Senator do?
Although the President can’t seem to put things as eloquently as Prime Minister Tony Bair. I know the President and the Prime Minister are on the same page in their beliefs.
Anyone still setting on the fence of Kerry versus Bush? If so why? We keep hearing about those who are still grappling with whom to vote for. If anything their stances on the WoT and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are diametrically opposed. So either you’re for this war are you aren’t and the issues of indecision are now based on national versus international issues. If you didn’t get the international picture out of this debate then you must not have listening. Possibly we were all wrapped up in the pomp and circumstance.
For whatever else you may hold against him, you have to agree that Bush does what he says he will do.
"Deficit small and short-lived".
Osama bin Laden dead or alive.
Tariffs?!
To paraphrase Chief Joseph [?], the Bush Man made us many promises, but he only kept but one, he promised to bring it on unto war, and he brought it.
A good orator is not strictly needed at this juncture. The countries and those against whatever the US does wouldn't change their views one whit were there a Clinton or a Reagan at the helm here. It's the politics of the moment. And it's not crucial. What's crucial is action.
The comparison with Canadian PMs doesn't really fly. Chretien wasn't exactly an orator. He was a shouter, and always seemed to have something up his cheek. I always thought he'd be much more confortable in a field, yelling at the guy working on that next stack of hay 100 years away. What he said about world events was nearly always stereotypical and copied from the Europeans. Nothing ipso facto wrong with that, but hardly original. Martin? He can say anything in 50 different milquetoast ways and everyone comes away knowing the guy is full of it. My view is that he's tolerated, nothing more. Martin's a good case for there Not to be an orator.
Bush's lack of speaking qualities is not such a bad thing. It's honest and direct. Takes a modicum of intelligence to fill in those blanks his speaking impediment leaves out. His actions speak for him.
If it's fashionable to hate Bush then so be it. He'll be the US's shock absorber. Thank you, Mr Bush. It can't be much fun.
Even Socrates couldn't abate the hysterical hatred for what the US symbolizes. You know, porridge, oatmeal, spinach. What's good for you. Capitalism, globalization and free markets. Seeing Kyoto for what it really is. Recognizing the UN as full of flaws, and definitely not some mystical Camelot. It's all very nice to talk of peace, but remember the Sudanese government speaks of 'peace' too.
So I say forget the sweet talk. Actions count. Those who get it will align themselves against Terrorism, mitigated by their national interests to one degree or other. In the end, no big, the sweet talk. Nex
It's the people who suck, the sheeple who want a 30 minute answer to complex change (w/ no commercials), who demand a thorough, complete, and totally accurate explanation of all problems. In a bumper sticker, a protest poster, or at most a 30 second sound bite.
And it's the Leftist press who want to keep the people in such comfy ignorance/ dependence.
Every policy has good points and bad points; even mistakes. I think Bush was too soft on looting, a mistake. But I'm not certain -- maybe this was proof that the US forces were Liberators, not Occupiers; and the Iraqis have to live with the reality of Iraqi looting, and a lack of Iraqi self-government.
Yes, Bush is mediocre on communicating. But he's going to invade Iran after he gets elected, or else he'll issue an ultimatum for verifiable inspections, led by the US, and in that ultimatum Iran will believe Bush will actually invade. UN or no UN. Bush getting re-elected is the best hope for Iran NOT getting invaded AND not getting nukes. Iran will NOT believe Kerry. I mean, if I don't believe he'll invade, why should they?
This obvious issue of Kerry's believability, by the terrorists/ dictators, should be a much bigger issue.
The "global test" that Kerry was talking about is a successful terrorist nuke attack (Tel Aviv, Miami, Moscow) -- after THAT test result, when it's too late, the world will accept US action.
"You folks down in America need to find someone who can speak, damnit. You don't have it. You won't have it."
The world has had plenty of leaders who could speak. Many of them gave the talent a bad name: Germany and Italy, 1930s, for starters.
"I'm going to start with Iran, because, unbelievably after all this time, neither candidate addressed it - or even seems to know what to do about it."
Bush mentioned Iran:
"A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran."
So did Kerry:
"Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons and the world is more dangerous."
If 'the world' cannot not understand the implications of a free Iraq along side a forceful stance against Islamic Jihadism in the three years after 9/11 and after all the speeches given by President Bush since, then 'the world' obviously does not have the capacity or the intention to ever understand the implications.
The problem is so obvious, if one re-reads President Bush's speeches one will find he has been very clear in his message however, it was our bias journalist, in their determination to create newsworthly conflict, who bungled the President's messages.
After listening to the 90 minute debate of Senator Kerry, without journalists helping clarify his message, I believe the nature of this war is way over Kerry's head.
I will not lose my resolve in supporting President Bush's resolve, his message has been very clear to me. What I cannot understand is why it is necessary to explain for the millionth time the benefits of a free Iraq in a war against Islamic Jihadism. President Bush has always maintained that this war is not easy, would take a long time and is a war unlike any we have ever fought yet, in the long run, the benefits will ultimately protect America by having planted the seeds of Democracy in a part of the world long in need of freedom from tyranny.
Unlike past adminstrations, this current adminstration did not sweep the rising tide of Islamic Jihahism and threatening rogue dictators under the carpet. They have met this decades long problem head-on with determination and resolve despite the fact that we are fighting a new form of warfare.
If Senator Kerry is elected he will sweep his responsibilities under the carpet in order to accommodate and maintain 'the worlds' longstanding and cowardly approach of deceptive genocidal peace.
"What I cannot understand is why it is necessary to explain for the millionth time the benefits of a free Iraq in a war against Islamic Jihadism."
Nobody, I think is really disputing this idea completely, except for Hosni Mubarak, Bashir Assad, and Prince Naif of Saudi Arabia. But you have to define "free," Islamic Jihadism, and then there's the likelihood of success weighed against the backlash engenered and the opportunity cost ...
Joe K.:
Absolutely right. Living in the USA, I couldn't agree with you more. And I wish we could vote for Tony Blair for President -- he's flawed, but he understands what's happening in the world, what can be done about it, and how to persuade others he's right. Alas, we're stuck trying to muddle through for 4 more years (whoever is elected) in the hope of a decent candidate next time.
Right, and Canada has been a leader in the free world? You guy's are more liberal than Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, H. Clinton, Rangel, and all of our Liberally elected officals that hate the U.S., the U.S. Military, and our decision to take the lead in the Global War on Terror. If the U.S. didn't take the lead and fight back, Canada would have?
Big Dogg, what part of "Canadian politics is also renowned for its suckiness..." wasn't clear to you?