| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/10 |
| 2004/10/1-2 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:33868 Activity:insanely high |
10/1 What I would call an excellent deconstruction of the
1st debate
Kerry's Global Warming
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7190
\_ So this is what an irritated conservative whose guy just got
thumped sounds like! C'mon, we've let Dubya go on too long
without someone to take him on mano a mano.
\_ So this is what an irritated liberal who's been called a wimp
one too many times sounds like.
\_ C'mon, your guy lost. Own up!
\_ FFS, what's the problem with taking a differentiated approach
to issues? The moment someone actually tries to consider various
factors and make an educated decision, without seeing everything in
black and white, it's "waffling". And sorry, an intelligent person
is willing to change their opinion when facts change. Yes,
Kerry's not taken many stands, if any. But I hardly see how not
going at everything John Wayne gung ho my-country-right-or-wrong
style makes a politician teh gay? -John the not Kerry fan
\_ Kerry's problem is lack of presence, or maybe he lacks sufficient
speaking ability and intelligence to come across appropriately.
He mumbles and rambles, and doesn't answer concisely.
Consider Jefferson. Jefferson was a subtle guy, but no
propaganda machine would successfully paint him as a waffler.
-- ilyas
\_ Did we watch the same debate? Kerry was articulate, made
an impression, and answered concisely and thoughtfully.
\_ Sorry, I didn't watch the deba^Wpress conference.
I was talking about Kerry in general. Bush's problem
is _atrocious_ speaking ability. Bush, however, comes
across as much more personable. Another point in Bush's
favor is that he is vastly underestimated by his opposition
(Commander-in-Chimp, etc). -- ilyas
\_ Watch the debate^press conference and see the
difference. Unfortunately, I think most Americans are
not going to watch the debate, so the same old images
will prevail. Giuliani certainly thought so.
\_ Jefferson never had to deal with the concerted efforts of
the Conservative Revolution as led by DeLay and Rove. The
new GOP would have you convinced that Jefferson was pinko
socialist with Big Gubmint written all over him.
\_ You are thinking of Hamilton. -- ilyas
\_ No, I'm describing Jefferson as the GOP would have
painted him.
\_ That's a fancy counterfactual you got there.
I wonder if it's true. -- ilyas
\_ Ilya, your homework is to assemble an analysis of
whether Jefferson would have approved of and
joined the GOP as it now stands, and how and
whether the GOP would have attacked Jefferson if
he stood against them.
\_ Kerry's "waffler" image stems from political positions that
are honestly nuanced. For example, we know that politically,
appearing to support homosexuals doesn't seem to help win
elections outside San Francisco. By having Bush take a strong
stand against gay marriage, via constitutional amendment, he
can contrast that with Kerry who says he's against gay
marriage, but has opposed garriage-ban legislation that he
felt was problematic. Kerry's problem is that he is not slick
enough to distill the crux of his point of view into short
sound bytes. And in this gay marriage example that's pretty
much impossible anyway, ditto for some other issues. For
example the patriot act. He voted for it but criticizes it
therefore he's a waffler. He voted to give Bush authority to
attack Iraq, but criticizes it, waffle with butter on top.
With the honest positions he's taken, there's no way he can
avoid the waffle attack, and a Jefferson with the same
positions would suffer the same. Incidentally, Jefferson was
said to be a poor speaker and relied on writing. So he'd never
get anywhere in today's politics.
\_ Leadership requires making tough calls and sticking by
them, not playing both sides.
\_ I'm surprised the waffle line never came out on Gore.
It's the only line R's seem to be able to think of
when faced with an intelligent, articulate opponent.
It wasn't true of Clinton, and it's not true of Kerry.
\- that's fine. You do realize that 78% of the Americans
disagree with you? http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html
disagree with you? http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.ex
clude.html
\_ that's fine. You do realize that poll has no validity
whatsoever don't you? -Kerry man
\_ Perfectly aware. 78% of the Americans are also wrong.
It's happened before. Anyway, my comment wasn't about
Kerry, but about a phenomenon in general. -John
\_ In America we decide most political questions by
what the majority believes. It might not be right,
but that is how Democracy works.
\_ Kerry was clearly the better speaker and more in control
of himself during the debates. Do you seriously challange
that?
\_ Kerry did well sticking to his talking points and
avoided providing answers with any substance. It was
standard motd style "republican:evil, democrat: good"
smear. Of course you think Kerry did well. He could
have picked his nose on TV and you'd say he was just
appealing to the nose picking constituency but is really
just nuancing the personal grooming issue.
\_ Err, you may wish to get out of that bubble you're in.
Pretty much everyone thinks Kerry won.
\_ When I watched part of the debate the first time I was impressed
by Kerry's style. Then I watched again after thinking
about things that were said, and completely changed my mind.
The policies Kerry put forward are suicide, and are well
outlined in this article.
\_ What's with the selective deletion, punk-ass? |
| 7/10 |
|
| www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7190 George Neumayr Published 10/1/2004 12:47:36 AM John Kerry, the undecided candidate appealing to undecided voters, said last night to President Bush that "certainty can get you into trouble." For Kerry, uncertainty is a virtue, and it was on ample display throughout the debate. Kerry wasn't certain about multilateralism, touting it in Iraq, then condemning Bush for applying it to North Korea. Suddenly multilateralist Kerry was rebuking Bush for not being "bilateral" enough and for bringing too many nations into the confrontation. Kerry wasn't certain about war, opposing sending troops to end the genocide of Saddam Hussein, then suggesting he would send troops to end the genocide in Sudan. Notice how quickly Kerry is willing to use the American military when America's security isn't at stake. His "Darfur" babble was more than just pandering to the Jesse Jacksons of the Democratic party; it revealed Kerry's view of the US military as nothing more than a humanitarian errand boy for the United Nations. Kerry gave away the game when he said America must "meet the global test" before using force in the world. There it is: Kerry trusts "the world" and mistrusts the United States. In one respect Kerry is amazingly consistent: he is still the 1960s liberal who wants US troops only "dispersed," as he once put it, under the direction of that global proctor, the UN Kerry returned to the rhetoric of his youth often. He spoke disparagingly of American troops whose first act was to protect an Iraqi building dedicated to "oil" -- as if that were as shameful as razing a Vietnamese village. He made the usual McGovernite bring-the-troops-home noises, even though he used the vacuous phrase "win the peace" repeatedly. Which raises a question: If there was no threat that justified entering Iraq, according to him, what threat would we face by leaving it? For whatever reason Kerry's not yet ready to unveil a four-month withdrawal plan. Kerry was forensically steady, but he spent much of the evening on empty bragging and name-dropping, itemizing endorsements from generals, a laughably hypocritical practice for a pol who began his career with pride at opposing them. It was also absurd to hear him brag about being the first US politician to root around the KGB building after the Soviet Union dissolved. Perusing the files on his Paris meetings with the Viet Cong? Gerald Ford was famously lambasted for his ludicrous statement in a debate that "there is no Soviet domination" of Poland. Kerry didn't stumble on that scale, though his knowledge of Polish politics isn't much better: as Bush pointed out, Kerry "forgot Poland" when enumerating America's allies at the start of the war in Iraq. The repetitive use of platitudes makes these debates incredibly boring. Kerry had trouble keeping his canned lines straight, invoking Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" principle. That would be an interesting policy for Pottery Barn to adopt: require clueless customers not to buy broken goods but fix them in the warehouse for hours on end. Kerry offers the American people a foreign policy based on Pottery Barn principles and "global tests." America, he said, must "earn" the respect of the world again. He reminded the audience that there once was a glorious age when France trusted America so much that De Gaulle didn't even have to verify our satellite photography. Kerry says that America confirmed the validity of his propaganda with "the invasion of Iraq" as he spoke of our troops as shameful occupiers on sacred Islamic soil. America, Kerry said when endorsing military action in Sudan, has a "moral responsibility in the world." But somehow removing the most savage dictator in the Middle East didn't meet it. George Neumayr is executive editor of The American Spectator. Blogaloney Reader Mail Editor's Desk The American Spectator's personal copy of John Kerry's New Soldier could now be yours, assuming McCain-Feingold say it's okay. The Prowler Roberts filed his report before ABC News blew the investigation wide open by reporting that at least two of the experts CBS used to verify the authenticity of the memos either could not or would not do so. "In the end, it probably doesn't matter," says the CBS News producer. more Reader Mail If Lawrence Henry was ever right about blogs, he is already wrong. Many bloggers do perform significant original fact reporting and investigating. Henry's critique of the blog-as-personal-diary is misplaced because that is not (and never was) the paradigmatic news-related blog and that genre does include some quality journalism. And as for resources, the larger blogs are attracting significant paid advertising. Lastly, the crack about blatant self-regard among bloggers is silly. The celebration in the blogosphere over Rathergate is far less self-regarding that the corresponding counterwave of pompous Tom Oliphantish prose about just how darn "professional" Old Media folks think themselves to be. Lazy self-regard and arrogant dismissal of criticism is still the province of Old Media. |
| www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.exclude.html FRAME: banner FRAME: top FRAME: content FRAME: back |
| www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/13581.ex com Search enhanced by Google 404 Error The page you requested cannot be found. The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable. Please try the following: If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. com home page and look for links to the information you want. Use the navigation bar on the left to find the link you are looking for. Enter a term in the search form below to look for information on CNN sites or the Internet. |