So what does everyone think of it so far? (I'm writing this 5 minutes into it, and I'm enjoying it already.)
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Kerry & Edwards....two Johns looking to screw America.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Initial thoughts....
Much closer debate in that they both showed up ready for battle.
The moderator was terrible and kept asking bad questions.
My feeling was that I was watching two fellows, each with a club, taking a swing at the other fellow, then bracing for the return blow. And this kept going on. However, I think there were more issues that Mr. Edwards raised that Mr. Cheney seemed to have no answer for.
Mr. Cheney is still a zombie.
Posted by Toadkiller (Member # 425) on :
Oh, I liked the moderator.
Cheney wasn't actually swearing on camera so I suppose that is an improvement for him.
I agree that Cheney just avoided answering many issues. Though I was a bit taken by how he managed to not say that he disagreed with his boss.
I've never voted for a Bush and aren't likely to in the future.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Many of the questions were too personal...better suited for an interview than a debate where both were supposed to sides speak to the same question.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The thing I was perhaps most impressed by . . . besides the structural integrity field strength of John's hair . . . was Cheney's thanks regarding the comments Edwards made about his family, and nothing more.
It wasn't one of those Kerry Waffles, or a Clintonian "Who's My Audience, Anyway?" panderings. It was raw honesty and class. In an era of excessive verbiage, his silence spoke volumes.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Much as I want to see Bush and Cheney go down in flames, I have to admit that it was nice to see a debate where both candidates were articulate. It almost makes you feel like there's some point.
Of course, there wasn't, since it was the veep debate, and who gives a flying cheney?
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I'll probbaly have more to say in the morning. But I'm writing this now without having listened to any of the spin (having spent the night watching the old episodes of SNL celebrity Jeopardy online). It was a vastly improved performance for the Republicans.
I'm in agreement with Jay on a few of those questions. They sounded a little too much like an HR director asking the candidates, "If you could be one part of a bike, what would it be?" But the questions were much better balanced this time in terms of time spent reviewing Bush's record versus time spent figuring out what Kerry would do differently in the next term. I thought the first debate should have focused more on foreign policy issues to come, not simply a plebiscite on the past 4 years' policy.
What I liked most was the two going at each other there for about 60 seconds during foreign policy period over who was lying on Iraq. I wish these debates were longer. I would have loved to really see them go at it. I know a rundown of the dossier on Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda and Saddam's cooperation with known terrorist groups is detailed, but I wonder how many people are taking the time to research that. It makes me long for Lincoln-Douglas length debates. An hour to each side, followed by half hour rebuttals. And questions from the candidates to each other. After two debates I realize how important those are to a good dogfight.
Edwards might have blown a chance for a runaway emotional heartwrencher by not describing the extent of that pool drain case more (it's an utterly gruesome example). Then again, it might have been too disgusting for a VP debate. On the other hand, Cheney blew an opportunity to go after a lot of Edwards's other cases that weren't anywhere near as meritorious. I would have expected him to have been briefed on them since there's a lot of faulty science behind some of his cases. Tort reform had to be done in only 10 minutes. It just doesn't do a topic that complicated justice. (No pun intended.)
The only possible zinger I saw was Cheney hitting Edwards hard over his attendance record in the Senate. I knew it was bad before, but I had no idea this was the first time they had met. But the moment still did not compare to Reagan's not making Mondale's youth and inexperience an issue in the 1984 campaign or Benson's You're No Jack Kennedy.
The candidates probably connected better with viewers depending on whether the issue was a "mommy party" issue or a "daddy party" issue. But the topics were evenly divided, so no advantage to either.
Overall, I would have scored the debate as Cheney by a hair, just like Kerry in the first. There were a few solid hits by both sides, no knockouts, and expectations of the Friday debate serving as a tie-breaker just increased.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:I knew it was bad before, but I had no idea this was the first time they had met.
Here's something to consider.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"The only possible zinger I saw was Cheney hitting Edwards hard over his attendance record in the Senate."
So, what about Edwards' response? I mean, he may have missed an inordinate number of votes (though, was that over his career, or just during the past year, most of which he's spent campaigning?), but Cheney made a ton of bad votes, and ones which he later � dare I say it? � flip-flopped on. So, however bad Edwards' Senate record is, Cheney's is at least comparable, if not worse, just for different reasons.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The "We cant afford another four years of your administration" was a nice sound byte from Edwards. I was sleeping after working myself to death and missed it but it looks like a marginal vctory for the Dems overall (based on recaps I've seen).
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
Yep, Jay, I just woke up to the Drudge headline on that. I don't know if he was lying or had forgotten. Too bad the air was let out that. It was probably the only really memorable quote about the affair.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
What I am surprised at was the way Edwards answers were rather infrequently an answer to the questions that were posed to him. He couldn't even follow the rules of "Don't name your candidate". So the DemoNrats have a plan that isn't just going to pull our troups tomorrow. So what is it? Oh wait, they can't reveal it until they get erected....sorry Clintonese speak. It's amazing that they are so adamant that they have "THE PLAN" but seem totally incapable of even articulating the smallest part of it numberswise.
And yes, I become more anti-democrat every time I hear one speak. I used to say I voted for the individual that I thought best reflected my values.....then I realized that for the last 20 years with only a couple of exceptions, they were all in the same party.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"He couldn't even follow the rules of 'Don't name your candidate'."
Yeah, 'cause that's important.
"So the DemoNrats have a plan that isn't just going to pull our troups tomorrow. So what is it? Oh wait, they can't reveal it until they get erected....sorry Clintonese speak. It's amazing that they are so adamant that they have 'THE PLAN' but seem totally incapable of even articulating the smallest part of it numberswise."
"What I am surprised at was the way Edwards answers were rather infrequently an answer to the questions that were posed to him."
Examples?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Oh, and regarding Cheney's claim never to have met Edwards... He also claimed to preside over the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. Hm... Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
He actually did attend, before he decided not to.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:So the DemoNrats have a plan that isn't just going to pull our troups tomorrow. So what is it?
However, I could not find a plan about how to deal with post-pre-emptive invasion Iraq on Mr. Bush's web site.
That makes one wonder about why the administration whose blindingincompetence got us into this Iraqi misadventure in the first place isn't being held to account for a plan to get us out on the same level Mr. Kerry is.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
In a nutshell, Kerry's Iraq plan is to accelerate Bush's exit plan. There may be other parts, but Kerry's kept his promises high and his specifics low so there's really no way to know beyond what he says minute-to-minute.
To pay for the acceleration and manage it, he'll have summits and talks and dinner parties and such wherein he will somehow manage to acquire additional support from the same countries he's made fun of and who have already said that no matter who wins the election, they aren't coming to the party. And he'll make the coerced and bribed start paying back their bribes by footing more of the bill to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That, of course, will make sense to them, because whereas they now support a right-place right-time thinker with bribes, a wrong-place wrong-time thinker who refuses to bribe them will naturally be their cup of tea.
From perusing his 263 page manifesto, it appears that the same basic theory holds true for most of his plans. There's little hard substance, but the basic idea is often to take the ideas from the Bush administration, do "more" and spend way more on it, add a little needless bureaucracy, and hope to hell that it works somehow.
He's citified-Bush plus pie-in-the-sky, sold on a platter of doom and gloom. Or maybe it was cake in the sky. Yes, it's cake in the sky. I've said so for years. What? What do you mean I said pie? Well, I was simply saying it was a threat of pie, not pie itself . . . it was really cake, and has always been pie. I never said it was cake. I mean pie. I've been completely consistent that it is pie.
Kerry's primary advantage is that he's not Bush. However, given the old "devil you know vs. devil you don't thing", that's also his greatest disadvantage. Why? Because whereas Bush might suck in many respects, he does so consistently . . . he's the devil we know. Kerry's the devil we can't possibly know, because he changes with the polls. He may have won the Democratic primaries by flip-flopping, but it isn't working for the nation at large.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Un....I know of no instance when Kerry "made fun of" any other country.
Please cite an example of this.
It's amazing that people consider re-thinking a situation as new evidence (or lack thereof) surfaces: it's madness to "stay the course" when your startegy does not work and your resaons for going to war are proven in error.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Um, first rule of politics: Never admit errors or you'll never get respect again. Bush follows this idiom with junkyard-dog obstinateness, yet he seems to have forgotten that the second rule of politics actually is in play now: it's only wrong if you get caught.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I think maybe what G2K was getting at was that Kerry has minimized the contributions of other countries (the whole US taking 90% of the casualties thing) or impugned their motives (the coalition of the coerced and bribed, as if they were forced into Iraq or joined for mercenary reasons).
As for WizArtist's saying Edwards was avoiding questions (if I am reading that post correctly), perhaps this is the kind of question in mind:
quote: IFILL: Senator Edwards, new question to you, and you have two minutes to respond.
Part of what you have said and Senator Kerry has said that you are going to do in order to get us out of the problems in Iraq is to internationalize the effort.
Yet French and German officials have both said they have no intention even if John Kerry is elected of sending any troops into Iraq for any peacekeeping effort. Does that make your effort or your plan to internationalize this effort seem kind of naive?
EDWARDS: Well, let's start with what we know. What we know is that the president and the vice president have not done the work to build the coalition that we need � dramatically different than the first Gulf War. We know that they haven't done it, and we know they can't do it.
They didn't, by the way, just reject the allies going into lead- up to the war. They also rejected them in the effort to do the reconstruction in Iraq, and that has consequences.
What we believe is, as part of our entire plan for Iraq � and we have a plan for Iraq.
They have a plan for Iraq too: more of the same.
We have a plan for success. And that plan includes speeding up the training of the military. We have less than half of the staff that we need there to complete that training.
Second, make sure that the reconstruction is sped up in a way that the Iraqis see some tangible benefit for what's happening.
And by the way, if we need to, we can take Iraqis out of Iraq to train them. It is not secure enough. It's so dangerous on the ground that they can't be trained there. We can take them out of Iraq for purposes of training.
We should do whatever has to be done to train the Iraqis and to speed up that process.
That works in conjunction with making sure the elections take place on time.
Right now, the United Nations, which is responsible for the elections in January, has about 35 people there. Now, that's compared with a much smaller country like East Timor, where they had over 200 people on the ground.
You need more than 35 people to hold an election in Cleveland, much less in Iraq.
And they keep saying the election's on schedule, this is going to happen.
The reality is we need a new president with credibility with the rest of the world and who has a real plan for success. Success breeds contribution, breeds joining the coalition.
Not only that, I want to go back to what the vice president said. He attacks us about the troops. They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy.
I think what Iffil was trying to do was to get Edwards to talk about the specifics of what a President Kerry was specifically going to do to get countries like France and Germany (and maybe Spain, Russia, New Zealand, or India) to send troops to Iraq. The crux of his argument (second to last paragraph, second sentence, I think) seems to be something like If we can win these battles, countries that once opposed our intervention will want to be on the winning side. That's a respectable argument to make, but it would have been much clearer and more persuasive to put it up at the top. (Hell, I had to read the transcript twice before I realized he had given an answer, and I'm a lawyer.) I don't think it's terribly persuasive (my impression was that the UN wasn't there for security reasons), but if Edwards wants to hinge their diplomatic strategy on a contingency (not trying to make that sound pejorative), he could have just come out and said it without going into what he wants improved intranationally.
WizArtist: if you had another question in mind, feel free to correct my guess.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Because whereas Bush might suck in many respects, he does so consistently . . .
I have a very hard time understanding this line of argument.
Basically it means that despite the fact that Mr. Bush has driven the country into a ditch, some people want give him the keys, pat him on the head, and say 'go ahead and do it again.'
Isn't it time to take the training wheels off of Mr. Bush's bike of state?
After 3� years, we know what the practical application of his foreign and domestic policy is like. Should we not hold him accountable for his demonstrated incompetence?
And finally, I think it's wrong to think of Mr. Bush some stalwart-I-never-change-or-play-politics sort politician. I think nearly every action of this Administration is calculated and politically motivated.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I believe, when referencing the lack of U.N. presence, Mr. Edwards was indeed talking about security concerns.
It's a rather stinging criticism. Despite the Administrations �Sunshine Policy� about Iraq, the reality of the security situation is such that even the U.N., which had bigger presence in war torn East Timor, is afraid to send it's people there.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Are they afraid or just willing to let the US fail before the world for defying their resolutions? To hear Kofi Anon decalre the war in Iraq as "illegal" it sure seems that way.
The UN has sent observers, inspectors, troops and humanitarian aid into situations worse than Iraq -and without the US troop presence to act as protection before, why not now? A UN presence would certainly improve the idea that the interim government is the US's puppett.
If Kerry wins, the situation will have to eiher improve drastically or Kerry have to go to the UN -hat in hand begging- before the UN offers any real assistance. Bush has snubbed them and now they want no part of Iraq's troubles.....of course, they are'nt doing anyhing about the Sudan or anything else either so mabye it's their M.O.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Bush has snubbed them and now they want no part of Iraq's troubles....
Something the 'what's Kerry's plan' crowd seems to fail to recognize.
Cowboy diplomacy only goes so far.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jay the Obscure: [QUOTE]Bus Cowboy diplomacy only goes so far.
But the thought of Kerry fighting himself and Cheney being revealed as a masked sniper in a "Scooby-Doo ending" to the election is amusing.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
I'm quite sure the UN wouldn't mind President Kerry (or even Bush) to come to them and ask for aid.
Now, if only the US would pay it's contribution, ratify Kyoto, join the ICC and stop being Israel's bitch, I'd be happy. Or not. I don't know.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Sure! the US should provide most of the UN's military coverage and pay dues like everyone else... That's fair, right.
I dont see the US as "Israel's bitch" as much as "Israel's only friend in the UN". Dont kid yourself that theres no anti-semitic element among UN members either....how many muslim countries vote for any resolution against Israel as a matter of policy, regarless of the provocation?
Sure, Israel is a part of the problem and they refuse to use "proportionate retaliation" but we cant really judge a people that live with that kind of terrorist threat every day.
Besides, I was just watching Clinton's former middle-east negotiator explaining how many times they offered Arafat a cherry deal for a Palistenian state and how often he responded with bombings.....it keeps him in power (and wealthy).
We sure should ratify Kyoto though! Leave it to Bush's "science advisors" to undermine anything without the word "God" in it.
Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :
I just don't find Kofi Annan saying the war was illegal to be that persuasive. To repeat from an earlier string, if even the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton (no right-wing shill) can say the war was "illegal but legitimate" in the New York Times, I think there is room for rational people to disagree.
As for the snubbing of Europe, I have a difficult time separating their indignation over the "frank exhange of viewpoints" Bush has brought to the international scene from an emerging corporatist state that has so much interest in its own economic advantage. (I know there are lots of exceptions that can be cited, but that seems to be the trajectory of European constitutionalism--faith in harmonizing centralization and synergy between the economic and political sectors.)
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...how many muslim countries vote for any resolution against Israel as a matter of policy, regarless of the provocation?"
And how many countries veto any resolution against Israel as a matter of policy, regardless of the situation? Oh, right, us.
Israel is just as much to blame for the ongoing problems over there as Palestine is. Sure, some Palestinians are blowing up innocent Israelis. But, when the Israeli government responds by blowing up innocent Palestinians, my sympathy starts fading.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
Israel is just as much to blame for the ongoing problems over there as Palestine is. Sure, some Palestinians are blowing up innocent Israelis. But, when the Israeli government responds by blowing up innocent Palestinians, my sympathy starts fading.
I absolutely agree that Israel's indiscriminate retaliation is a part of the problem but it's not "some" palestineans blowing up innocents: their aknowledged leader encourages and rewards it!
Nothing will change as long as Arafat is alive and in power: it's not in his intrests to settle on ANY peace plan authored by anyone. Not even muslim leaders.
It's not like he's going to strap explosives and blow himself up: not when he can encourage women and children to do it for him and still get treated with the respect of a world leader by Presidents and the UN alike.
If Arafat were to die of natural causes, there would likely be peace within a year folowing: if he's killed in an attack though, he'll be a maryter and we can just forget about peace there in our lifetimes.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
"If Arafat were to die of natural causes, there would likely be peace within a year folowing"
Oh yeah?
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Um...natural causes over there is usually measured by caliber.
There will NEVER be peace in the middle east until it is turned into a glassy roller rink. When every Jew and every Arab is dead, then there will be peace. America is STUPID to believe otherwise. Isaac and Ishmael will be at each others throats till the very end. Why? Because there is ALWAYS a reason to hate if that's what you CHOOSE to do.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Seriously, do your words register in any sort of thought process, or do they just flow right out of your fingertips to the keyboard with no sort of rational filter whatsoever?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
They are at war, WizArtist, they don't just feel pure, Batman-badguy hatred, they feel justification and pride. I don't think there can ever be peace between them, other between some occasional individuals who refuse to let cultural bias get between them (jewish Romeo & arabic Julia), but the easiest solution, except for nuclear strikes, which will never be and can never be an option, would be to separate the peoples to such an extent that each feel they have room to live.
That would of course open the chance for an even more pure isolationary culture and xenophobia for the muslim countries than already is, so that's not necessarily good either. Secondly, moving peoples around is like interfering with barrier reef microbiology, no matter how hard you try to care for it while you manipulate it, you end up hurting some of it.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Romeo and Julia??
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: "If Arafat were to die of natural causes, there would likely be peace within a year folowing"
Oh yeah?
Likely, yes: most of Arafat's top aides have pushed for peace but Arafat himself has reneged on all promises for years. Many good men- serious about peace- could take over and make a real change if Arafat dies of, say heart disease and not a missile attack.
If the Isralies were to kill Arafat in some raid, they'd have to go all out and do whatever is needed (including going to war with their neighbors) to crush Hammas completely or suffer endless reprisals from suicide bombers acting in Arafat's memory and things would be far more violent and disorganized than now with no central figurehead to speak both for-and to- the Palestenians.
The thinking that "there will be no peace untill the middle-east is a glass bowl" is idiotic in the extreme....what in hell are you thinking, Wiz?
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I don't know...while I think things would get worse, I don't know if their would be more suicide attacks. Israel killed both leaders of Hamas and it took them nearly 6 months to retaliate.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
So, uh, what about the (relatively) large paramilitary organizations, that, you know, only like Arafat slightly more than they do Israel? I can't imagine any leadership change in the Palestinian Authority affecting what Hamas does, for instance, other than the latter actually replacing the former.
There is no single person or authority representing the non-Israeli side in this conflict, and thus peace cannot be won simply by getting a new leader for one particular faction. Sure, your hypothetical Arafat replacement could build a broad coalition and bring everyone to the negotiating table and be remembered as one of the greatest statesmen in history, but that doesn't develop necessarily from Arafat being replaced. It could just as easily go the other way. (In fact, more easily, of course.)
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
What I was attempting to convey is this; How long will it be before an arab state obtains nuclear capability? If a nuclear weapon were detonated in Israel do we have ANY doubt what the retalitory action would be? India and Pakistan are threats already in that theatre. Iran isn't far off and the worst kept secrect is that Israel has nukes. I was in NO WAY saying we should nuke the mideast, but this is a fine example of an off-the-cuff statement being taken in a wrong manner. You can't expect rational thought to overrule deep-seeded hatred, bigotry, and "The List". (All the crimes that have been perpetrated on one side by the other)
Right now we are seeing the erosion of freedom in both the U.S. and Russia, all in the name of "security". Polarization is not just what is happening between the Democrats and Republicans, its a clannish fracturing happening along all lines globally. Everyone NEEDS to identify with SOMETHING to give themselves purpose and meaning in life. This leads to cultural distinctions that are ALWAYS a separating factor. When you try to meld cultures, you end up with a virtual Frankenstein's Nation.
Multiculturalism will never work when ANY side claims to be "right" or have "the answer". Unfortunately, it is these very same beliefs that delineate between these factions, cultures, and religions. You can NOT have both...either you will have one cultural theme prevail to the demise or submission of all others or you will have war.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Erosion of freedom in Russia? Freewheeling, everything's-running-smoothly, our-entire-nation-isn't-hostage-to-kleptocrats-spies-and-mafioso Russia? Eroded from what?
Also I take issue with your multiculturalism thing. There's a difference between a multicultural society and opposed cultures that just happen to share a geographical location.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: It could just as easily go the other way. (In fact, more easily, of course.)
Even a % chance is more than they have with Arafat in power now.
If there was that vaccum, other arab leaders could step in to try to negotiate a peace, it would'nt have to be one super-statesman. Currently, no one (arab leader) wants to be seen as siding with the isralies against even the most irrational arab.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
None of that has anything to do with Arafat.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
SURE it does! No one will replace him while he's still alive: he's too popular with his people, thus nothing changes.
The Palestineans have been fighting against the Isralies for years but the Isralies are really fighting against one man's stubborness- Arafat refuses any offer of peace- even when it's in the best intrests of his own people.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
So, what, Arafat never shook hands with Rabin over the Oslo accords?
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Those were the days.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Shaking hands means what exactly to a political and terrorist leader?
Um....nothing?
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
that the hand behind the back is holding a knife.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: Shaking hands means what exactly to a political and terrorist leader?
Um....nothing?
Just ask Rumsfeld.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Rummy's no "terrorist"...or "leader" for that matter though.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
