Learn Nothing from the Debates !

The one thing I learned from the past three presidential debates is how little I can actually learn from these debates. I am still amazed at how both candidates can give a two minute answer to a completely different question from the one asked by the moderator. There seems to be no better medium than a debate for either candidate to reapply the rhetoric that their respective campaigns are built upon. In reality, how are you going to lay out a plan addressing complex and systemic problems that have developed over a period of years, be it either foreign or economic/domestic policy, in two minutes?

The best we could possibly hope for is to use the time to asses the individual candidates character based upon how he deals with the pressure of being in a debate and the confidence he projects during his typically rhetorical answers.

Many will base their votes on mere perception alone. Never looking beyond thier moral alignment or personal approach, Kerry is Catholic and has the typical New England, Kennedy style of intellectual repartee, and Bush is a Christian Fundamentalist and combines down to earth witticism with a flair for the evangelical. These differences are exploited by each candidate to appeal to a certain demographic of voter.

Another thing that impressed me were the “Classic Debate Inaccuracies” that tend to get flown around during events of these types. For example Kerry said we’ve lost 1.6 million jobs. These jobs were lost in the private sector and are somewhat offset by employment gains in the public sector (some created through government spending in response to the newly found need for bigger homeland security). Bush, in turn attacked Senator Kerry’s voting record saying he voted for increased taxes on 98 occasions, when in reality many of the votes were for increased ceilings on spending proposals without any real effect on the tax code at all.

These are the typical tools of the politician, to prey on the average voters ignorance of the details behind issues and of the entire legislative process in general. Many bills are voted against because the plan laid out is a poor one regardless of the issue it addresses, or because too many riders had been attached (pork). Like most lazy Americans, I myself would prefer to buy into the easy stories that are eagerly presented to me by the campaign via mainstream media, but I know in my heart that if I want to make a truly informed decision I still need to dig deeper into voting records and shadowy initiatives. For example, George Bush's Executive Order 11490 , an executive order tying in all other executive orders giving the president unilateral sweeping powers over all aspects of government. See: http://www.dojgov.net/shadow_government.htm

Bob Kerrey was recently quoted on these pages as having called Bill Clinton an "unusually good liar" Calling a politician an “unusually good liar.” is like calling a professional boxer an “unusually violent person”. It is the very nature of their being, and the degree to which they control themselves dictates the success of their performance. We are also assailed by the negatively framed comments put forth in the form of an answer. For example, instead of “ Well in this situation I would do this.”, the first word out of both candidates mouths is “Well my opponent does that which is wrong and I’ll do this which is right.” The nature of debate is to cast doubt on your opponents argument, whereas the nature of political debate is to simply cast doubt upon your opponent.

The negative campaign strategies of the Bush re-election machine are renowned throughout political circles. They indirectly and insidiously attacked former Texas Governer Ann Richards’s character and sexual orientation by questioning the amount of highly positioned administration appointees who just happened to be lesbians. This was eventually followed up by a leaflet campaign featuring a photo of two men kissing, placed under the windshield wipers of evangelical Christians about the state while they were at church. This worked well to cast enough doubt about Ann Richards to allow George Bush to edge her out in his bid for Governer of Texas. Did Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney’s daughters work for her as well? Well, we all know how important gay issues are in comparison to health care and rising insurance costs, unemployment, social security, crime as well as national security and border protection.

Through all of this however one thing can be ascertained from the past performances of both Candidates, one is eager to push forth a policy, unprecedented in the history of the United States, of invasion and pre-emption based upon the provocation of terrorism, and the other prefers to maintain the integrity of our original foreign policies, use the utmost caution to build alliances not only with France but with as many nations as possible, to give time to verify the intelligence we receive and is simply much less eager to go to war.

I really didn’t need the debate to clarify my insight on that particular aspect.

Ted Carter

I will be publishing some copy here in the near future, need to find the final draft that made its way into the Warsaw Times Union. I have it at home in a file. In the mean time here are some "un-patriotic" Liberal or better yet anti-Bush web sites for you to chew upon.

http://www.rise4news.net/Impeachment_Resolution.html



http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878291.html



http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/09/10/conservatives/index/index_np1.html



http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=72659



http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/



http://www.georgebush.com/Agenda/



http://www.jibjab.com/



http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657



"An occupation of Iraq would have incurred

incalculable human and political costs, there was no

viable exit strategy.

Had we gone the invasion route the United States

Could concievably still be an occupying power in a

bitterly inhospitable land."



George Bush Senior