|
 |
Welcome to Backyard Blog, our group online journal for this election season. We've asked a broad array of people with deep ties to the region to share their views on politics during the 2004 campaign.
Send your comments to bbcomments@seattletimes.com. |
October 29, 2004
| A nice anecdote |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 03:58 PM |
I’m sure we’ve all heard about campaign signs, both Democratic and Republican, being torn up, stamped on, or otherwise destroyed in people’s yards and along roadsides this fall. I know I’ve seen my share of pulverized signs. Driving home from school the other day, I saw both Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards signs that had been damaged, and not by the wind. As immature and brainless as these little turf wars are, I heard a story yesterday that helped reassure me that most people just want to get along civilly, despite their political differences.
My friend’s mom was volunteering at the Bush headquarters in Bellevue earlier this week. It was a rather cold afternoon, so when the door abruptly swung open with a blustery winter chill, everybody looked up at the visitor. A lady, literally covered in Kerry paraphernalia (bottoms, pins, ribbons, etc.), walked in. Knowing she must’ve looked at least a little bit out of place, she explained that she and her neighbor had both placed huge signs (the gargantuan kind) in their respective yards, her friend being a Bush fan. It was all in good fun, she said. Then suddenly, in the middle of the night, someone had come along and smashed her friend’s Bush sign, knocking it to the ground.
The lady was there to buy (and, according to my friend’s mom, they aren’t cheap) a replacement sign for her neighbor, in a show of neighborly congeniality. Now isn’t that something? The lady and her neighbor were still friends, were still fellow citizens, and yet still disagreed. They did so equitably, however, without malice or spite, and when one’s sign was demolished, the other replaced it with another. That’s a nice story, and a true one, and I think it’s also quintessentially American.
Respond
|
October 28, 2004
| Stamp acts, further reading |
| Posted by Shalini Gujavarty at 09:18 PM |
Yesterday, someone at work started a thread that said that the Post Office wouldn't deliver absentee ballot votes with just a 37-cent stamp. This prompted a number of people to try to verify the claim by calling the Post Office, King County Elections, etc. According to most of these reliable sources, a 37-cent stamp is sufficient. Just to be on the safe side, I'm putting two on mine.
I voted by absentee ballot today and will mail it off tomorrow. As a naturalized citizen, I relish being able to vote — especially in presidential elections. It was difficult being an onlooker and not a participant. I empathize with all the Microsofties who are here on H-1Bs and won't have the opportunity to vote — and not just because nearly all the ones I've talked to are virulently anti-Bush.
It took me about 15 minutes to complete my ballot. I was torn over how to vote on the proposal to reduce the number of King County Coucil members, until I saw that it was sponsored by Tim Eyman. Instinctively, I voted against it. I voted down the party line on the partisan races but broke with the King County Young Dems' Endorsements by voting for the charter school referendum and against Initiative 884. I would rather pay a progressive state income tax than face an increase in the sales tax — which is by nature regressive (imposing a higher burden on lower income households).
I e-mailed a friend of mine who lives in Jacksonville, Fla., and she was going to try to vote today so that she'd be free to volunteer on election day to drive the elderly to the polls and to be an election observer.
I knew The Economist wouldn't let me down. Even though they tend to support Republicans on economic issues and they supported Bush's initial decision to go to war, they have concluded, "With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for Kerry on November 2nd" and framed their choice as Bush, the Incompetent versus Kerry, the Incoherent.
Respond
|
| Finding a classmate on the ballot |
| Posted by Stephanie Sanguinet at 02:45 PM |
As Tuesday approaches, I’ve been struck with a sense of sudden realization. While most of my friends and I have been glued to the presidential race, most of us know (and care) very little about local elections and the measures that will be presented to us in less than a week. So, being the Internet savvy girl that I am, I went to the Web for a quick lesson in Washington state politics 101.
After reviewing the Washington Secretary of State Web site for more information on local candidates and measures, I found that one of my old high school classmates is in the running for state Legislature. Where have I been?! Have I been so preoccupied with the presidential campaign that I blindly ignored all the yard signs I now see littered throughout north Snohomish County? The biography on the Web site does little to tell of his/her viewpoints and gives only the information that the candidates want you to see. However, as not to ruin this former classmate’s chances of election, I won’t humor you with stories of character and morals as they were then.
What I can say is that reading this person’s biography made me laugh to myself and recall memories shared. We were on the high school newspaper staff together for a year and spent many late nights talking politics and religious beliefs and bantering back and forth. Only those who have served on a newspaper staff know how much you can learn about the others on your staff in the late-night hours before a deadline, drinking case after case of Mountain Dew and eating bottomless pizza. This person was destined for a life in politics and made it very clear that was where he/she would end up in the future.
To this candidate I say good luck, I hope you reach Olympia.
Respond
|
October 27, 2004
| Act nationally but think locally, too |
| Posted by Carl Gipson at 10:16 PM |
Local races are often overlooked during Presidential re-election years; that’s the way it goes. But I feel very strongly about two statewide elections this year and we Backyard Bloggers have yet to focus on two important races: the gubernatorial race and the race for attorney general.
They say all politics are local politics and, while that’s changed dramatically in the past few years, it’s a truism I find more relevant everyday. Why? Because at the end of the day we don’t care so much about national policies that do not directly affect us.
We only care about finding or keeping our current job, making sure our children are safe, fed and educated, and trying to make our way through this horrendous traffic.
Say what you will about presidential politics, but there are very few of us directly affected on a daily basis in our homes, jobs or personal lives because of what goes on in the Oval Office.
My point is this: people in Olympia often have much more influence on how our daily lives are affected than people in Washington, D.C. I feel very strongly that the new governor and attorney general will shape public policy in this state will either help us recover economically and socially or drive us further down into this economic quagmire we’ve been stuck in for several years.
The Puget Sound region, in particular, has been in a funky malaise for quite some time when it comes to solving the poor state of our transportation and economic infrastructure.
We seem to be waiting around for someone to tell us to do something. We lack decisive leaders who put their necks on the line and gamble for the good of our region. I believe, for the first time in many years, that both Republican candidates for the governorship and attorney general position in this state consist of these leadership qualities.
Don’t dismiss these statewide races as an afterthought. They are important too and will affect your life, business and school easily as much or more so than the candidates running for President.
Respond
|
| Aloha votes |
| Posted by Matthew Ranger at 09:43 AM |
Well kids, you will never guess what state is now in play. I'll give you a hint: It is not normally considered a battleground state, it's a few thousand miles away from the rest of the states, and it's surrounded by a small geographical feature called the Pacific Ocean. Those of you who aren't still guessing know that I'm talking about Hawaii. Those of you who are, well, you know now, so we can move on.
Hawaii is historically a Democratic leaning state, having only gone to a Republican twice in its history. Up until about a week ago, that trend looked to be continuing, as Kerry had a comfortable lead. This all changed when Ward Research published a poll giving Bush a 0.7 percent lead. Two days later a poll from SMS Research confirmed the gain, giving Bush a one percent advantage. SMS had Kerry ahead by seven points two months before.
Whatever the reason for the shift, it presents an interesting question. Could a candidate actually get away with campaigning in a tropical paradise?
Conventional wisdom would say no, but further scrutiny reveals some definite advantages. Hawaii has four electoral votes. This is equal to the amount wielded by New Hampshire, where the candidates have invested a great deal of time and money.
A four vote state represents an eight point swing if it goes the other way, so a candidate ignores it at his own peril. One must also consider that the four votes would be relatively easy to pick up, as one visit could probably secure the allegiance of people who, quite rightly, feel largely ignored by the mainland.
When you add in the fact that large numbers of core constituencies populate the state (military and military retirees for Bush and native Hawaiians for Kerry), you could make a strong case for a visit.
In the end, I don't think that we'll see either candidate go to Hawaii, but I wouldn't be surprised to see them drop some cash there. In the closing days of the campaign, opportunity abounds and little can be taken for granted.
Respond |
October 26, 2004
| One week to go |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 05:21 PM |
With less than a full week to go, this particular young Republican is pretty confident.
John Kerry has given up on making Missouri a “battleground state” , and even the BBC shows Mr. Bush has a decided Electoral College edge over Kerry, with 274 for Bush and 264 for Kerry.
Plus, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll from over this past weekend puts Bush ahead, again. So, despite the protests and valiant efforts of Kerry fans everywhere, I do honestly believe my man will handily win the election.
In more local news, I was pleasantly surprised by the Seattle Times’ recent endorsement of Dino Rossi for governor, as well as Rob McKenna for state attorney general. Both men will bring a fresh approach to Washington politics, and will clear some of the stale political air that’s lingered over Olympia since before I was born. I applaud the Times for making a bold statement on the direction it wants our state to take.
In closing, here’s a quick note in response to my fellow blogger Sierra: I appreciate your opinion, and wanted to see what you meant, exactly, by your post. However, I can’t relate to “…most of my friends await the upcoming election with indescribable fear.” That sounds pretty bad. Even if my guy loses, I won’t be quivering in dread.
I’ll be proud that we choose a leader without bloodshed, violence, or destruction. My friends and I might be disappointed, but we refuse to be terrified. That’s part of what being an American is…not being scared when the rest of the world is. Next week we all get to decide, to choose who we want in charge of our state and country. I agree with Snoop Dogg : let’s go vote.
Respond
|
| Listen to those who've served |
| Posted by Stephanie Sanguinet at 11:29 AM |
The realms of politics go well beyond appropriate borders and politically correct venues. My weekend was an example of this.
I met an ex-Army Ranger on Friday night in the midst of a DJ and rowdy-alcohol-drinking 20-somethings, mingling amongst a crowd of strange faces. He spoke of friends lost, the impact of the presidential election to those serving in the military, and of his time served. The passion that was so clearly conveyed even in the midst of a crowd left me awestruck and reflecting on our conversation since.
The passion most of us feel right now in the midst of the election is that of discouragement and confusion. How many of us have the same genuine pride for our country that most service men and women radiate when speaking?
These men and women are government officials in their own right and daily are the first contact that some foreigners have with our country. And their general attitude is not that of “me” but “we”. Rarely do you hear one speak of their individual accomplishments, but that of their specific unit and the accomplishments of the country in general.
As this year’s election approaches, I find myself torn between political and social lines with the more people that I speak to. I’m disappointed by our lack of concern for others and more concerned that we have continued to become a self-serving society.
I challenge each of us to sit down and hear the stories of someone serving in our military; and reflect on our own lives and decisions that are to be made on November 2.
Respond
|
| Notes from the road |
| Posted by Shalini Gujavarty at 09:20 AM |
Two weeks ago, I took part in a negotiations class. The instructor was a Harvard Law School graduate and told us that he had voted for Bush in 2000 but didn't intend to vote for him in 2004. Therefore, he said, he agreed with everyone in the class.
Last week, I traveled to New York and Toronto. Neither of these were battleground areas - Toronto for obvious reasons and New York is to Kerry what Texas is to Bush - namely, comfort food.
Though Canadians cannot vote in our elections, the major papers are covering the race on a daily basis. Haroon Siddiqui, a columnist with the Toronto Star neatly summed up the state of things here when he questioned, "Given the monumental mistakes made by this incumbent [President], why has Senator John Kerry failed to sew up this election, as he should have long ago?" Mr. Siddiqui's answer is, "Practising risk-averse politics, Kerry has failed to rise to this historic moment to provide the leadership many Americans have been desperately seeking."
On the way to New York, my Seattle cabdriver asked me if I had seen Fahrenheit 911 - he had just seen the DVD version. He thought it was a good film, but dashing Michael Moore's hopes, the cabbie disputed that the film would change anyone's mind. I had seen the film in the movie theatres and predictably, I thought it was an entertaining and thought-provoking film.
I received my absentee ballott last week in the mail and am looking forward to setting some time aside to vote - maybe during the next Sox/Cardinals matchup. This was one of the highlights on my trip. On Tuesday night, I went to a sports bar in New York with some colleagues and we watched Shilling's brilliant and apparently sanctified performance. As a Mets fan, I did enjoy seeing the Yanks crumble. If the Red Sox, one of history's true underdogs can triumph this year - maybe there is a chance for Kerry.
As to the election, though nearly every national poll has Bush leading Kerry, focusing on the 10 battleground states presents a different picture. According to RealClearPolitics.com, for example, Bush was definitively ahead in Ohio and Wsconsin before the debates and was leading by the margin of error or better, in Pennsylvania and Minnesota. Now Kerry is narrowly ahead in all 4.
Respond |
October 25, 2004
| Liberals v. conservatives (again) |
| Posted by Anna Kleppert at 09:45 AM |
Michael made an excellent point
Also, I find it quite fascinating that 'w' feels that we know how best to spend our own money ... but not nessasarily how to live our own life. He feels you shouldn't be able to choose who you want to marry if they happen to be the same sex as us... Oct. 24 post
in his most recent post, and one that I would like to reiterate in response to some of the feedback I have received from my recent assertion that what divides liberals from conservatives is a tendency for the latter to view most political issues on a how-does-this-affect-me-individually basis, and that basis only.
If indeed Bush wants to continue stressing the importance of putting decisions, financial or otherwise, back in the hands of the individual American, why do conservatives continue to allow him the freedom to take away decision-making
capacities in other areas? I understand that the bible doesn't necessarily indicate Jesus' feelings on taxation (as far as I know), so can I draw a conclusion that matters of morality as defined by the historically Christian Bush-voting Republicans of today's America are the only areas in which we want to give our president the right to not only TELL us what is right and wrong but actually attach legality to such issues?
Alex, a reader and father, responded to my previous post with a comment that as a conservative, he doesn't worry that his daughter will have an abortion (he assumes she wouldn't), but that she would have an abortion without first consulting him and his wife. I must stress that legalizing abortion does not translate into a Get Out of Jail Free card for every woman who becomes pregnant accidentally. Proper education, access to resources and FIRST AND FOREMOST parents who take responsibility for their sexually active sons and daughters are the elements that must be in existence for abortion to cease to be used as a form of birth control.
I'm sorry, Alex, if you feel that your relationship with either of your daughters is not open enough so that they would come to you and your wife before Planned Parenthood, but do not be so quick to pass that responsibility off to President Bush to take care of by restricting access to abortions or related services.
There are plenty of people who you may never know who need abortions for a variety of reasons you may never understand. And for them, organizations such as Planned Parenthood are the only places where women and men living below this country's poverty line can get the care they need. So while you do not want to even consider the option that your daughters would ever abort a child, please do not confuse your own moral judgements regarding the upbringing of your daughters with a Constitutionally-given right that exists to protect every woman's -- not just your daughters' -- right to choose.
Respond
|
October 24, 2004
| Gay marriage and evangelicals will decide the race for Bush |
| Posted by Matthew Ranger at 09:19 AM |
And now, ladies and gentlemen, my prediction for the outcome of the Presidential race.
Here's the short story. George W. Bush will win Ohio and therefore the election, based on a higher than expected turnout, will break in his direction due to a gay marriage amendment being on the ballot.
For those of you who are still with me, here's the long story. In this year's Presidential election, 11 states will also have ballot initiatives proposing amendments to their respective constitutions defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. Of those 11, four are generally thought of as swing states in this election: Arkansas, Oregon, Michigan and Ohio. Currently, Arkansas looks to be breaking for Bush and Oregon for Kerry. Kerry is counting on Michigan big time, and currently has a lead there. Realistically, Kerry will lose a few other states, and the election for that matter, before he loses Michigan. This brings us to Ohio.
Current polls show the race there neck and neck with nearly every poll within the margin of error. With Nader off the ballot and the race nearly over, it is looking more and more like turnout will be the decisive factor in this race. It is my belief that the amendment initiative will have a profound effect on turnout and will push Bush over the top. How did I come to this conclusion? Two reasons: Missouri and evangelical Christians.
In September, Missouri had a similar initiative on their ballot. While it passed by an extremely wide margin (71% to 29%) the real story was in the turnout. 1.1 Million people were expected at the polls that day. 1.5 showed up, an increase of around 40%. Admittedly, I would expect neither the amendment victory margin nor the percentage increase of turnout in Ohio, but I believe that we can expect both an amendment victory and increased turnout due to it. I would expect that the increased turnout would greatly benefit the President, as the issue turns out more conservatives than it does liberals.
The President has courted evangelical Christians during his administration, and with good reason. It has been estimated that 4 million of them nationwide stayed home during the last election. Now this is a group of people that will break heavily in the president's direction. An amendment on marriage is just the kind of issue that will bring a great number of those, and more specifically a great number of those in Ohio, to the polls. While they're at it, you can be almost certain that they will leave a chad hanging for President Bush.
Respond
|
| In brief |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 09:15 AM |
I do not believe it inaccurate to say that most of my friends await the upcoming election with indescribable fear.
We are not jaded, we are terrified. I apologize for any confusion.
Respond
|
| Calling names |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 09:12 AM |
After watching the debates and listening to the attack ads go back and forth, I have a few questions..
First, what exactly is the difference between a "Massachusetts liberal" and an ordinary liberal? Is it somehow worse to be from Massachusetts and be a liberal at the same time? And, if it is, why isn't Kerry calling Bush a "Texas conservative"? because being from Texas AND a conservative ... *yikes*
By-the-way, I was speaking with my father who lives in Massachusetts and is, I guess, a Massachusetts conservative. He tells me that people in Massachusetts will be voting for Kerry not because they want him to be president but because they don't want him to be their senator anymore. Funny dad.
Also, I find it quite fascinating that 'w' feels that we know how best to spend our own money ... but not nessasarily how to live our own life. He feels you shouldn't be able to choose who you want to marry if they happen to be the same sex as us. he feels we shouldn't be able to choose what to do with your own body. but he feels we can be trusted with our own money. Thanks for your faith in the people, George.
Respond
|
October 23, 2004
| Garrett answers back |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 08:24 AM |
Ian, my friend, “you can run but you cannot hide from John Kerry’s record.”
The fact that you would spend 650 words to try to convince all of us that the terrorists of the world are hoping that George W. Bush is re-elected is silly. The truth is, John Kerry has spent 20 years voting against the U.S. Military. A true liberal at true form—this is not to say his intentions were not to use the monies for social programs he felt the country was better served by, this is only to say you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
John Kerry voted against the Patriot missile that defended our troops and allies from Saddam Hussein’s attacks (yes the former leader of Iraq who invaded our ally, tried to assassinate our president, and launched missiles at Israel), voted against the B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, the M-1 Abraham tank..and the list goes on. See Charles Hurt’s article in the Washington Times .
But most telling, Kerry voted against the UN, our allies, and the majority of the US House and Senate in 1991 to defend Kuwait against a preemptive attack from Iraq. When it mattered Kerry had a choice, and he chose not to lead.
The spin has gotten out of control if this record is the one terrorist fear the most. (Garrett puts on his boots and wades through the spin).
Respond
|
October 22, 2004
| I'm sorry! |
| Posted by Jay Porter at 02:19 PM |
Like the late rhetoritician Kurt Cobain, I'm all apologies today.
First apology: sorry for being AWOL of late. I was in Oklahoma for the weekend--and wow did I enjoy some surprising revelations from staunch Repubs who can't vote for Bush this time!--and now I'm in Boston. I can only hope last night's game bodes well for a certain Red Sox fan who wants to beat a Yankee. Because don't let the accent fool you: W is a Connecticut Yankee if ever there was one.
Second apology: sorry I always have to so mean to my fellow bloggers.
Now let me continue with the important work of being mean to a fellow blogger. William Mari: you really must acquire a set of criteria for judging politicians that does not involve family relations! George Bush is not your daddy, Laura's not your mom, and unless I am mistaken neither George Nethercutt nor Dick Cheney is your grandpa! Neither are any of these comparisons indicitive of the kind of serious judgment you accuse Sierra of lacking. To paraphrase Scripture, you're removing a speck from your sister's eye with a log in your own.
To your point, William... with America's young men and women fighting and dying in two faraway lands, can we stop worrying about who's grumpy, and who's maternal, avuncular, or vaguely aunt-like?
Because the "real news today" is this: people who are voting for Bush have a markedly fallacious understanding of important facts about both the world situation-- and Bush's policies!
A serious, scholarly analysis of numerous poll results proves--at least for those of us in the reality-based community--that something is seriously wrong in this country. It starts with the White House's willingness to distort, deny, or classify every fact they disagree with. And Fox News (whose viewers "also wouldn't pass a test on foreign affairs") and its ilk don't help. But somewhere along the way, We the People do our part to mess things up by concentrating on style and not substance.
Don't get me wrong--I'm probably a bigger fan of "Queer Eye" than any of you. But there is a time to be Carson Cressley and a time to be more like someone serious about the Big Issues. Someone like my new hero, Jon Stewart.
Who, by the way, resembles nobody I know. Seriously.
Respond
|
| Who does Bin Laden want for president? |
| Posted by Ian Stewart at 11:21 AM |
All of you probably know by now (if you watched Garrett and my debate) that I won’t shy away from a fight except maybe the one that (Sierra and William are about to throw down on…I’m staying well away from that) so there’s no way I could let Garrett get away with his “Putin for Bush!” post.
But before I get to the bulk of Garrett’s post, let’s get a couple things straight. Of course Putin is supporting Bush. In exchange for Putin not raising hell about National Missile Defense system or any of the other huge mistakes the Bushies have made, they’ve given Putin a free hand to do anything he pleases, from consolidating his own power and setting democracy even further behind in Russia (read more here and here ), to doing whatever he pleases in the war in Chechnya (how’s that going, by the way?
Chechnya is like Iraq, except it’s been going on longer, bloodier, and deadlier, while Russians are beginning to second-guess the strategy.
But on to the meat of Garrett’s very interesting question: who would Bin Laden prefer?
There’s no question it’s Bush.
If you’re looking to build a terrorist network, who better than a President who said we’re going “on a crusade” to help you recruit Muslims?
Who better than a President who, when he had the opportunity to tighten the noose, allowed Bin Laden to escape into the mountains of Tora Bora?
Who better than a President who actually thought Iraq is and was a center of terror, when terrorists weren’t even in the country until after we invaded, smashed up the infrastructure, and replaced it with US forces?
Don’t believe me? Musab al-Zarqawi (the main terrorist now in Iraq) is from Jordan, not Iraq…but he wasn’t there before we invaded. Saddam certainly was a bad guy…but not by al-Qaida standards.
Who better than a President who is in bed with the Saudis, Bin Laden’s second (or biggest, at some times) enemy? Seen any action by the U.S. on the land that supplied 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th? Nope. Not so much as a complaint…even down to the price of oil.
Who better than a President who says there is no deficit, and who instead pours money into his own mistake in Iraq and to drug companies and the rich at home?
Who better than a man who can’t, for the life of him, correctly pronounce “nuclear” or “mullahs”?
Bin Laden knows.
With Bush as President, Bin Laden’s recruiting stays high. Bush will continue make the wrong choices in the war on terror, keeping the heat off Bin Laden. The longer Bush is in office, the weaker our finances get, the more Bin Laden gets mileage from his strikes because we’re too poor and have our military stretched too thin to respond.
Which brings me, as much as I am loathe to give any credit to conspiracy theorists (even while holding my X-Files coffee mug), to the Bushies use of terror alerts. Haven’t seen John Ashcroft much lately, have we? Or Tom Ridge? Condi’s out campaigning when she should be back in Washington doing her job …
With the election slowly slipping away ( check these electoral college websites as Kerry increases his lead over Garrett’s protestations), Rove & Co. have only one option left…they have to play the terror card.
By scaring the tar out of people in cities, the Bushies could depress turnout just enough to swing some key states their way. Don’t think Rove won’t do it. It’s his M.O….do anything to win…or more precisely, charge your opponent with doing exactly what you’re doing so people miss it.
And whaddya know, that’s exactly what the Republicans are charging Kerry with right now. Forgive me for being cynical…I’ve been through four years of this. Here’s hoping the next twelve days won’t be more of the same.
Respond |
| The Likable Candidate: Why I vote straight ticket only. |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 09:11 AM |
With less than two weeks before the election, this blogger took a sojourn back to the office oasis—a return to the water cooler.
Just as my fellow 20-somethings' journey to their high school reunions raised some questions in my mind earlier this week regarding the popular kid phenomenon, today the talk was all about the “likable candidate.”
A co-worker who shall remain nameless was remarking on how much she liked Dave Reichert, and was voting for him even though she is a ‘true liberal;' another remarked how Dave Ross was indeed a ‘dork.’
It was then that I remembered what my mother would tell me when I was growing up: “I vote the person, not the party, I am an independent.”
This made me wonder, why do we vote? Why does our democratic republic even have elections?
If issues -- abortion, taxes, social security, the war on terror -- really do matter, then why would we ever vote for “the best person” in a congressional race?
Sure, you might elect a "nice guy" from a party you do not normally agree with, and perhaps that person is a better representative, but if their party controls the House or Senate, and you oppose it, then you voted against your own beliefs in the spirit of being ‘independent’.
For this blogger, I say down with the best candidate, I am voting straight ticket. Not because of a narrow mind, but because issues truly matter in this election.
“Republicans believe every day is 4th of July, but Democrats believe
every day is April 15.”—President Ronald Wilson Reagan
Respond |
October 21, 2004
| Grandpa vs. Grump |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 09:15 AM |
I watched the George Nethercutt/Patty Murray senatorial debate last night, and came away with several observations.
Right away, I noticed Senator Murray’s demeanor while waiting for Representative Nethercutt to finish speaking. I’m not one for appearances over substance, but even if I was a die-hard “Patty fan”, I would have been distraught by her sour, blank-as-a-slate expression.
George at least tried to look engaged and even smiled a few times, but Murray never broke from her monotone, clipped mannerisms. I know a debate’s a serious thing and all, but the candidate must try to convey at least a modicum of…not-so-grimness.
Nethercutt gets kudos for mentioning his daughter and wife, and coming off a whole bunch better, playing a grandfatherly figure. The debate itself was a nice, restrained affair, led by King 5 news anchor Dennis Bounds, with Nethercutt and Murray answering questions from a panel of local journalists (in much the same manner as the Rossi/Gregoire debate), including the Seattle Times’ David Postman.
The two candidates even managed to agree on a couple of things, like trying to get replacements for the KC-135 tankers based at Fairchild Air Force base in Spokane (the KC-135’s are almost fifty years old, having been based on the Boeing 707). So, all in all, it was a good little (televised) discussion; a bit dry, but good.
As a closing note, I feel I must address a fellow blogger (I don’t do that very often, I must admit ;-). Sierra, I’m getting tired of the I’m-a-jaded-young voter” routine (Ed: see post below) (“The young are following the election more closely”). I mean, come on, how many times have you actually voted? Once? Twice? One of my friends from the UW says he hasn’t seen this much excitement for an election in a long time.
Just the other day, when the last debate was playing on the TV in a coffee shop near the ‘U’s main entrance, he estimated that forty-five students were crammed in there trying to watch it. You say:
“I have to admit, I too turned off the third presidential debate halfway through: too much rhetoric is bad for the brain.”
That’s kinda’ sad: even if the whole thing was big political show full of rhetorical wind, don’t say the whole thing was pointless. Tell that to the 1000+ soldiers’ families who’ve died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands more who’ll be gone for Thanksgiving and Christmas.
I agree, we have a right to grumble, but it’s a bit distressing when the grumblers could very well be the ones fighting. You and I are about the same age as many of our soldiers serving overseas. Let’s keep the grouchiness down, for their sake.
Respond
|
October 20, 2004
| The young are following the election more closely |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 04:52 PM |
I've spent the last two weeks talking to everyone (students, professors, the kids outside Safeway, the guy selling Real Change weeklies outside Safeway, the people on the bus, the people tabling for Bush on the HUB lawn, the people who breathe...) about the election and in all this talking I found an unexpected trend.
The older the person I was talking to, the less they were following the media coverage of the election. Regardless of their political views, their involvement in politics, what they knew about the candidates, any other visible factor, older people are simply not following the news as closely as the younger generation.
Maybe this is because they're not online as much (unlikely), or don't have as much time to watch TV, or don't have The Daily Show to fill them in on statistics (if nothing else)... there are various explanations I suppose.
The sentiment I hear most frequently expressed though, is that many people have simply closed their eyes, have sent in their absentee ballot and are waiting for the result.
Washington's vote has been statistically decided so unless you're traveling out of state to knock on doors, many are removing themselves from the anxiety of the daily ups and downs and waiting for an uncontrollable result.
I have to admit, I too turned off the third presidential debate halfway through: too much rhetoric is bad for the brain.
Respond |
| Putin for Bush! |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 09:33 AM |
A few weeks back, during my duel of wits with fellow blogger Ian, I asked the question, perhaps rhetorically, who the terrorists wanted to win the American election. If Bin Laden, somewhere in a remote cave in, Afghanistan received an absentee ballot (postmark Florida), which box would he check?
Yesterday, the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, speaking from a news conference after a summit in Tajik must have been keeping up with the blogging at the Seattle Times as he provided an answer:
I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq … aimed …against President Bush….International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term. If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power.
The President of our former enemy raises a serious point. If we really want to know who is seen globally as most effective against terrorism, perhaps a close look at our enemies' preference will give us an insight.
Columnist Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post also raised this point earlier this month. There is a reason all of us have been wary of a pre election attack, and it is because we instinctively know that there are terrorist groups that would love to see George W. Bush removed as the American President.
Respond
|
October 19, 2004
| Get real |
| Posted by Donald Gilbert-Santamaría at 11:42 AM |
I’ve always been under the impression that America is a land of pragmatists, can-do people who look at a problem up and down until they find a solution based on the facts and an analysis of those facts.
We created the most dynamic economy on the face of the planet, we put a man on the moon, we saved Europe from fascism.
And isn’t that supposed to be the creed often wielded to great effect against soft-headed liberals with their pie-in-the-sky ideals? While liberals dream of world peace and ending poverty, conservatives talk about practical politics and getting things done. They’re fiscally conservative, free-traders, and above all, they believe in the capacity of the individual to solve his or her own problems without the intervention of Big Brother.
Well, it would appear that I’m living in the past. In the Bush regime, they have a new term for those of us who still cling to empirical evidence when making judgments about the world we live in. We are part of that passé group known collectively as “the reality based community.” So says an aide to Bush, who reportedly went on to describe a new vision for America: “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Welcome to the empire, a place where power is its own justification.
I must confess that this little Nietzschean morsel frightens me more than anything I’ve read about the administration since the campaign season began.
If we take this aide at his word, this administration feels that all its actions are by definition justified. No explanations are required, either for the exercise of state power or for the consequences that ensue as a result. And above all, no accounting to the facts. Everything is reduced to the simple tautology that power is its own reason for being.
The New York Times Magazine article from which the quote is taken links this idea back to Bush’s faith; that is, to his religiously inspired belief in his righteousness, empirical reality be damned. But in the statement above power doesn’t even require a religious justification. It just is.
What is perhaps most astonishing about this vision of America, however, is its profoundly anti-democratic nature. While Bush goes around the country pounding podiums in defense of freedom, one is left with this vision of his apparatchiks plotting the empire’s next move, insulated from any sense of accountability to either the American people or--and this is perhaps the most disturbing part--the facts themselves.
Respond |
| The popular kid |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 11:16 AM |
At the ripe old age of 28, this blogger has finally entered that precarious time when life calls us to go back. That is right, I am talking about the High School reunion. A time when we do silly things like start our first diet, rent a Ferrari, and actually iron a shirt for the first time. All my friends have been plagued by such events this past year and after comparing notes I have realized there is a lesson to be learned regarding this election.
The popular kid.
Remember the kid who everyone admired? Perfect looks, perfect friends, great clothes, and flawless skin. (perhaps in our memories we were that kid, but most of us being honest were not). Well, the truth hits home when we make the return to that place that was once, ten years ago, the center of our lives. The "popular kid" is now just a normal human being; in fact in many cases was not nearly as attractive as some of his or her classmates. We just bought into the idea that someone was most popular.
USA Today ran a poll that blared Bush is up by eight points. My sister, an undecided, had seen the polls and sounded more like she was going to vote for Bush because of it. Does this make sense? If higher polls make people more likely to vote for such a winner, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is when I realized that part of the game with public opinion polls is the same game we played in high school.
Everyone wants to like the popular kid, because they are popular. For this blogger such a phenomenon seems a bit troubling.
For all the hot polls this is a great site to keep track of the horse race.
Respond |
| The future of Social Security |
| Posted by Carl Gipson at 09:58 AM |
One of the wonderful things about technology (e.g. Backyard Blog) is that it helps to link up younger people with modern issues. Chances are many of us readers and writers would be less inclined to pay attention to some of today’s hot-button issues if we were not provided this arena of debate.
Why am I talking about this? Because this avenue (blogging) is primarily aimed at us, the younger generation of twenty-somethings who will shape the future of public policy in this nation. Indeed, maybe blogging—among other technological innovations—will help us get a head start on considering such important issues when it’s our turn to lead.
What I’m getting at is that there are several issues this younger generation should pay absolute attention to. We’ve talked about the two most prevalent issues this year -- national security and the domestic economy. But there’s another issue that needs to be addressed on the national scale.
Social Security.
John Kerry’s assumptions about “privatizing” Social Security cannot go without challenge. Senator Kerry is taking the party line against the privatization of Social Security by scaring seniors into thinking they will be hung out to dry if Bush’s plan comes to fruition. That’s hogwash but I want to focus on one claim he made and leave the others for a later discussion.
Senator Kerry claimed that if Bush’s Social Security plan goes into effect it will be a financial windfall for Wall Street. He claims that Wall Street fatcats will stand to earn $940 billion over the next 25 years if America’s future workers (you and me) place our money into personal retirement accounts managed by private mutual fund firms.
What the Senator does not say is that the study he’s citing also says that the $940 billion over 25 years is merely the administrative fee paid by us to private money managers to make us money (something everyone does for a mutual fund). The study used an administrative fee of 0.08% of contributions per year. Seems reasonable.
I, and other people much smarter than me, did the math on this equation. While Wall Street does in fact collect $940 billion over the next 25 years, it also means that just over $117 trillion is pumped into the market and our economy.
While the government currently squanders any Social Security surplus and the rate of return on our Social Security “investment” is staggeringly low, I’d be willing to pay 0.08% of my Social Security withholdings to make the kind of rate of return a private investment account will ensure.
Hmmm…American workers in control of their own financial future with their own money…sounds pretty far-fetched to me. I don’t remember the Constitution saying anything about our Commander-in-Chief also playing Chief Financial Officer with our retirement earnings.
Respond |
October 18, 2004
| A Texas-eye view of Seattle politics |
| Posted by Stephanie Sanguinet at 09:51 AM |
A friend of mine recently visited from Texas to start house shopping; he and his wife are moving here soon.
He was amused by the fact that Washington is such a liberal state…he didn’t say widely Democratic, but liberal. Being from Texas, he is as Republican as they come and is outspokenly rooting for President Bush’s re-election. Out to dinner one night, he brought forth his observations:
- Seattleites cannot drive to save their lives.
- Though the majority of Seattleites have Kerry bumper stickers, the opposite is true for those who live outside of the city. He saw more Bush bumper stickers in the suburbs and Eastern Washington.
- There are those voting for Kerry strictly to out the President and his administration.
I was intrigued by an outsider’s opinion of our political viewpoints in the state. Texans are proud of their President and are quick with anti-Kerry jokes and banter.
Whereas most Republicans have no great reason for disliking Kerry, Texans have their long list of reasons and are able to back up any debate with stark facts, thus making any conversation feel like a debate. Having talked to him about the current election, I was almost envious of a man who obviously took great pride in the state he grew up in.
Respond
|
| Curiouser and curiouser (read this post) |
| Posted by Matthew Ranger at 09:48 AM |
With just two and a half weeks remaining until the election, things are becoming very interesting. A couple of items of note:
- In the debates, the president was adequate while Kerry was excellent. I suppose this should be expected given that Kerry started a debate society in college and has been debating pretty much his entire adult life. His performance has wiped out most of the margin created by the GOP convention and left him in a good position for the final push to election day.
- Now it may be just me, but this last week the Kerry/Edwards campaign just hasn't seemed to be at the highest level of decency. First Kerry refers to Dick Cheney's daughter to try to score political points, then Edwards says that if they were elected that Christopher Reeve would get up and walk. Poking your finger in family matters and trying to profit from a man's death. Real classy guys.
- In looking at the states that really matter in this election, I find that the President's margins have held in Florida where he's slightly ahead and Pennsylvania where he's slightly behind. I'm surprised, however, to find that he's slipped in a big way in Ohio. A month ago, polls had him up there in some cases by double digit margins. Now some polls have Kerry winning and nearly all are at least a statistical tie. No Republican president has ever won without taking Ohio. The President won't win without it either.
- The other state that really interests me is Colorado. There is an initiative on the ballot that would divide the state's electoral votes between the candidates according to the percentage of the vote that each candidate gets. This would effectively give the losing candidate four electoral votes and the winner five. Unfortunately, the writers of the initiative made it retroactive so that it would apply to the current election cycle. This opens it up to a legal challenge. Should the election turn out razor thin and this initiative pass, we could be looking at yet another election being decided by the courts. Now this situation is somewhat merciful in that I don't see the US Supreme Court taking on the case, but the prospect of the election being decided by the Colorado Supreme Court is certainly within the realm of possibility. Welcome to Colorado: The New Florida.
|
| Picking at the poll numbers |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 09:26 AM |
If you've been a polling junkie for the past few months like I have, you should read this interview with Charles Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report (registration is free).
I’ve spent weeks glued to these websites, knowing full well that polls don’t tell you a darn thing about the reality of the situation. Maybe I am having a hard time giving up the security and hope I’ve been getting from watching the numbers.
These websites, with their fancy-pants statistical analyses, margins of error, and those deceptively clear-cut red/blue/gray maps, give the impression of being concrete, when in fact they more resemble a pile of mud, each pollster shoveling his own dirt onto the heap, hoping that things will consistently hold together.
In his interview, Mr. Cook casts some very rational light on the hype surrounding polls, undecided voters, swing states, and Senate races, among many other topics. Some highlights: Jews are the Gore-to-Bush voters everyone is wondering about; in the polls: thumbs up to Zogby, thumbs down to Rasmussen and Survey USA; finally, Mr. Cook “cannot remember ever seeing a race where a well-known, well-defined incumbent won a half or more of the undecided vote. Generally it is at least two-thirds to three-quarters going to the challenger…”
Good news for Kerry? Maybe, but read the article and questions will get answered. It’s like an “Elections n’ Politics FAQ.” Very, very interesting.
Respond
|
October 15, 2004
| Now the election is Kerry's to lose |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 10:18 AM |
Once again, I did not have the liberty of watching The Debate live; I ended up watching the PBS re-run with my girlfriend late last night.
Some things to reflect on: If Kerry “won” the first debate by looking presidential and just not screwing up, then he whupped Bush last night. Kerry looked very presidential, while the President himself seemed immature and smarmy. Bush began almost all of his responses with a smirk and a snicker,
that self-righteous little “heh” thing he does. The highlight for me was Bush’s derisive ribbing of the moderator Bob Schieffer’s employer, CBS, and the trustworthiness of “leading news organizations.” That might go over well when
the President is surrounded by staunch supporters, but in this forum it seemed
unprofessional and tasteless.
As for Kerry, this should extend the uptick he’s been riding in the polls , although his numbers seem to have leveled off somewhat in the last week, possibly due to the lack-luster performance in the second debate.
In this regard, I thought Slate’s William Saletan puts it best: “For seven months, Bush buried Kerry under negative ads. Now tens of millions of people who saw those ads are seeing Kerry for themselves. The debates are washing out the ads.”
It’s now John Kerry’s responsibility to remain in the spotlight – making sure that Bush’s attack ads don’t undermine what he has accomplished during the debates. Early in the summer this was Kerry’s election to lose, and now we are back to that point. Kerry has the momentum right now, and if he can maintain that for the next three weeks (which will be very difficult to be sure) he will be in a great position come election day.
Respond
|
October 14, 2004
| 3rd debate thoughts: clear choices |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 11:16 AM |
Whew, I just finished watching and taking notes on two debates: the third and final debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry, and then the gubernatorial debate between Christine Gregoire and Dino Rossi.
The presidential debate unfolded in the same format as the first did back in Florida a couple of weeks ago. The candidates stood at lecterns and were asked domestic policy-oriented questions by Bob Schieffer.
The tone of the debate was actually quite positive, as both men tried very hard to come across as the friendlier face. On that note, I thought President Bush did the better job, smiling (and not scowling), talking in a more measured and upbeat manner, and appearing in his best, “neighborly” manner.
Kerry, for his part, looked and sounded… senatorial, but seemed a bit tired. There was, of course, some back-and-forth verbal sparring, but it was the least heated of the three debates. There was even a nice moment of levity at the end, as host Schieffer, asking about the influence of the President and senator’s wives and children (pointing out that all three of them have two daughters) asked, “What is the most important thing you've learned from these strong women?”
BUSH: To listen to them.
(LAUGHTER)
(and) To stand up straight and not scowl…
KERRY: Well, I guess the president and you and I are three examples of lucky people who married up.
(LAUGHTER)
And some would say maybe me more so than others…
They, of course, mentioned other things, Bush talking about meeting his wife for te first time, and Kerry talking about his mom. But it was pleasant way to end their (at times) rather serious discussion. Humor aside, make no mistake, there is a clear choice between the two men.
As my esteemed blogger colleagues Garret and Ian noted in their blow-by-blow account, Bush and Kerry differ strongly on issues across the board, from tax relief to health care to Iraq to Supreme Court appointees.
These are major issues with big distinctions between President Bush and Senator Kerry, and the time to make up one’s mind is almost gone.
As for the Dino Rossi/Christine Gregoire debate, it was another example in contrasts. A well-selected board of local journalists, including the Seattle Times’ David Postman, asked Rossi and Gregoire specific and at times tough questionsabout topics that affect Washington state.
Rossi presented himself effectively as a potentially fresh voice in Olympia, while Gregoire played the collected political professional. The two have very different plans on what, exactly, they want to do if elected, but suffice to say, there are clear delineations between them.
Rossi wants to change what he sees as an ineffective, twenty-year-long status quo of Democratic leadership, while Gregoire sees nothing inherently wrong with it, and would like to essentially “stay the course”.
In a sense, the race for governor boils down to whether or not one wants a continuation of the current Gary Locke-style of governmental guidance, or if one wants to try something new. Either way, at least there’s a relatively clear choice to make, and it’s up to us to make it come Election Day, November 2nd.
Respond
|
| One discouraged voter |
| Posted by Stephanie Sanguinet at 11:09 AM |
After watching the first two debates diligently to compare the presidential candidates, I came away with a black hole feeling at the bottom of my stomach.
The endless bickering and promises seemed to flow from both of them, and last night, the debate proved to be "more of the same". The candidates have begun to resemble living corpses who spout never-ending political promises and jargon, while staring monotonously into the camera.
This is why the young people in America have become disenchanted with the idea of voting or moving into a political field. We're tired of the politics and games that go along with elections and do not want America to continue down the same tired path. Regardless of the candidates' political affiliation, we want someone who will look us in the face and tell us, "I can't promise to fix/change everything, or even to be perfect, but I will work effortlessly to do my job to the best of my ability."
Neither candidate has. Kerry continues to point out all of the White House administration's mistakes and promises to change current standing. (While also promising not to raise taxes...where is all the money for the changes going to come from, Senator?) The president seems befuddled with the ideas of the senator, and has not proven himself to be an effective debater.
Politics has become the taboo subject that most young people think about, but no one wishes to speak of during this election. We have elected ourselves to political parties without knowing the affiliation, background, or the consequences. Some friends have dubbed themselves as liberal as not to be affiliated with the Democratic candidate; however, there are some who will proudly tout being a Democrat or Republican without having the first idea as to what their affiliation means.
At this point, I don't care whom my peers vote for, as long as they know why they are voting and the consequences that their vote could have at the end of that day in November.
Take a stand for what you believe in and do not waiver, even when the presidential candidates are unable to.
Respond |
October 12, 2004
| A Dem view of them vs. us |
| Posted by Anna Kleppert at 02:38 PM |
I met a woman in Albuquerque, New Mexico with a fresh approach on how to choose a president. She plans to watch each candidate’s performance on the Dr. Phil show, assess in her own mind their strengths and weaknesses in character only, and then use that as her sole source of information on voting day.
She said that the most important characteristics of a strong and able leader are represented and played out in his or her family life, and that Kerry and Bush would be questioned about their thoughts on child rearing and family on the Dr. Phil show. And though to me this approach to staying politically active and aware seems a bit ridiculous, to many Americans it makes perfect sense. And I am going to go out on a limb and say that I bet it makes more sense to conservative Republicans than liberal Democrats.
So this discussion about Dr. Phil got me thinking. A running debate among my friends surrounds the question: what singular characteristic sets us liberals apart from our conservative counterparts?
Here is my proposition (a great sweeping generalization to be sure): conservative Republicans want someone to represent them whom they would be proud to have as a family member, someone whose character is unquestionable, whose approach to child rearing is in line with their own, whose children they would want their children to play with.
I think questions of sexual orientation, abortion and the like are very personal considerations that, when approached with a “do I want a gay couple living next door to my children?”-type of mentality strike a chord deep in the hearts of many conservatives. I think conservatives consider questions that have deeply moral and religious origins and then hope that their representative government will pass laws and elect judges that will promise to maintain the quality of life they deem to be important.
It seems that many of the more conservative Republicans I have encountered on my trip across America are first and foremost concerned with how they will personally be affected by a new president or senator.
In contrast, I offer my sweeping generalization of more liberal Democrats that I have developed over the past couple of weeks. They too take a personal approach to political issues but are just as likely to consider other people -- whom they may not even know -- as individuals with specific concerns when speculating about how certain laws might affect an individual.
For instance, the Patriot Act is some of the worst legislation I have seen in my lifetime, but I don’t think it has or will affect me personally very much. I know what rights of mine may be infringed upon under the guise of the Patriot Act, and I know that I will most likely have minimal interaction with the Act. But when I generalize the Act and think about all the other individuals in this country whose will be greatly harmed due solely to race, intellectual pursuits or even religious beliefs, I am angered. It seems that liberal Dems are also far more prone to consider people of other countries on this individual level.
I know I’m just touching the tip of the iceberg here, but I feel like the gist of the Republican Party is centered on the locus of individualized fear. I think your average conservative Republican is fearful that his daughter will have an abortion, fearful that his son will be attracted to another man, fearful that he’ll be attacked by terrorists during his daily commute.
These are all deeply personal fears that, to be sure, conservative and moderate Democrats have as well. The difference I see, though, is that while some Democrats may be morally against homosexuality, they are less likely than Republicans to vote based solely on such a personal issue. To them the issues that are of the utmost importance, this issues that should make or break a candidate’s run to office are those that deeply affect other individuals both in this country and around the world.
Respond
|
| A broader world view |
| Posted by Carl Gipson at 08:36 AM |
I find it interesting that in the past couple of days little has been said about the Afghan elections.
The only news bits I heard came the day after the election and the headlines basically read “Chaos reigns in Afghan election.” They were followed up the next day in the back of the paper in a small clip which read “Afghan fears about election overstated.”
I guess you have to look really hard to find good news these days—and not because good news is scarce at the source but only because it is scarcely reported.
I also find it amusing that little to nothing has been said about Sunday’s reelection of Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who ran on economic prosperity and national security. Not only did Mr. Howard win, he won by a huge margin.
Despite the fact that Mr. Howard has been strung up by much of the international press for wholeheartedly supporting President Bush, Australians decided to stick with the current administration. Australia is a lot closer to North Korea, the militant Muslims of the Philippines and the nuclear states of Iran/Pakistan/India than the United States and Mr. Howard recognizes the international struggle he’s locked into. Good for him.
The United States has always looked after its integral and vital interests. I expect my President to put Country before World most of the time—that’s what we pay him for. Looking after America’s vital interest is what we expect. That’s why unions and Democrats are always complaining about “outsourcing.” They want American jobs to stay in America. This is why there are tariffs and import taxes, and why all Americans are supposed to loathe Airbus—we want American companies to succeed, even if it means some foreign employees are put out of work. I suppose we’re supposed to be “America First” when it comes to the economy and “World First” when it comes to our security?
Please.
Respond |
October 11, 2004
| The image of America |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 01:31 PM |
I actually had a political discussion with my wife yesterday.
We were talking about how Americans are viewed by the world compared to a few years ago. She asked me to think back to just after the 9/11 attacks. Remember how the world reacted? We were embraced by just about every nation in the world and they stood side by side with us in a combined effort to defeat terrorism everywhere. Remember the candle light vigils, the messages of comfort? Now think about the present day. If we were to have more attacks along the same lines of 9/11 would the rest of the world react the same way?
This election is about our image in the rest of the world. Bush has destroyed the image of America in the eyes of the one hundred some-odd nations we share the earth with.
Being a military brat, I lived in Germany during my last two years of high school. I remember traveling around Europe and how friendly people were. Now I read in the Seattle Times that Americans are pretending to be Canadian to avoid conflict while traveling abroad.
Only three years ago we were embraced; now because of the actions of our government we feel the need to hide who we are.
Somehow we ended up being the world’s sole superpower and the next American President will affect life not only in this country but life in many other countries as well.
As the only superpower (presently, at least) we are responsible for working with our neighbors. If we are to be respected by others we need to respect others. This is a lesson I learned as a child, a lesson Bush does not seem to have ever absorbed.
Bush does not appear to feel as if we owe the world anything. Kerry is at least in the frame of mind that we are not the only ones on the planet. I don’t think Bush feels that America is the only nation that matters, he just seems to act like it.
Respond
|
| Debate watch on campus |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 12:03 PM |
I've watched the last two debates in the basement of McCarty Hall, a predominanty underclass dorm at the UW. In full awareness that the 150 students surrounding the bigscreen were self selected, and therefore horribly biased, I nonetheless offer the following observations ands weeping conclusions about the political bents/desires of this local college croud:
- "Well, blah blah blah Iraq spending, healthcare and something vague about taxation." is NOT an appropriate answer to, "How EXACTLY are you going to cut the deficit in half?"
- If either candidate answered a tough question thoroughly and thoughtfully his popularity would shoot through the roof.
- Iraq, although important, is not interesting. Most people understand the candidates' stances on the subject and have heard the arguments for both sides too many times.
- Anything involving cutting college costs gets cheers.
- Taglines ("I have a plan," "flip flop," "weapon of mass deception" etc) are wildly unpopular.
- If they mention Iraq in the next debate (supposedly only on domestic issues), someone is going to get very very angry.
- No one in the room was voting for Bush.
Respond |
October 09, 2004
| 2nd Debate Thoughts: Bush’s Fire and Kerry’s Chatter |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 09:38 AM |
*Ding ding* Round two finished Friday night in St. Louis between President Bush and Senator John Kerry.
The prez’ went on the offensive immediately, displaying more passion and charisma than during the first debate. Kerry was… well, in fine Kerry-form, looking “presidential” and sounding like the senator he is.
The town-hall format was actually quite good, as host Charles “Charlie” Gibson delegated informative questions to members of the audience. With lines like “you can run but can’t hide” from President Bush, and “weapons of mass deception” from Kerry, the debate seemed very much like an old-fashioned political boxing match -- many verbal jabs, feints, and yes, ducks.
As a Bush fan, I was proud of my man as he stood his ground and refused to vacillate. Kerry “looked” presidential, but that was about it. This wasn’t a true knockout blow, but I rather think Bush did better than last time, and came across great.
Respond |
| The role of the debates |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 09:31 AM |
Well, the candidates have just had their second debate and as a John Kerry supporter I must admit that President Bush certainly did a much better job at debating Senator Kerry.
ABC's after debate poll shows that most people polled feel that Kerry won (44% Kerry, 41% Bush, 13% feel it was a tie). I am admittedly relieved that the poll went this way because I would have to say that Bush did a better job debating Kerry and possibly did a better job than Kerry in explaining his policy. In fact, I am genuinely shocked that Bush did as well as he did. This debate certainly solidified each candidate’s base and the president’s better performance tonight may even inspire Kerry supporters to get out there and vote.
Though Bush performed significantly better than he did during last week’s debate, I feel he failed to present anything new that would inspire this country to come back together. The president was asked at one point to name three different mistakes he felt he made during his term as president and he couldn’t. He couldn’t even name one. What this says to me is that ‘w’ has an inability to learn from his mistakes and furthermore refuses to acknowledge that he has even made any in the first place. Though this question at first seemed innocuous, it truly speaks volumes about the character and intelligence of our president.
I stated before that this debate certainly helped each candidate solidify their own base. But the debates are really for the undecided voters. In my last post I related to you that I was in a hotel lobby eager to speak with others while watching the vice presidential debate. Unfortunately no one was paying attention to the debate except for one FedEx driver. Juan from Alaska wrote in response saying; “He's the one that probably matters the most. The folks who wake up everyday, go to work every day and eat and sleep their job are the people who make this country work. His vote will be vital, and it will probably not be a simple knee jerk move.” I hope that tonight’s debate gave that FedEx driver and the others out there who are still undecided more to think about.
I will be in Columbus, Ohio for the final debate this Wednesday. I believe it will be the most important of the series. I hope to speak with folks in Columbus about their feelings on the debate as write about it here. The upcoming debate will be the one that sticks in people’s minds as they head to the polls just 24 days from now. I think it will be one for the ages.
Respond |
October 06, 2004
| Cheney shredding machine |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 10:50 AM |
I’m sorry, but Vice President Dick Cheney shredded Senator John Edwards last night during the vice-presidential debate in Cleveland, so much so that it wasn’t even funny (even though some of Edwards’ facial expressions were).
As I watched at home, I saw (and heard) the flushed face and tones of John Edwards as the Vice President pummeled him mercilessly. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. The MSNBC team watching the debate also got the very strong impression of a bona-fide Edwards stumping. The veteran Cheney firmly put the junior first-term senator in his place, clearly coming from the position of gravitas and experience.
I’ll admit that as a goofy young conservative, I (of course) have my own leanings as to which candidate won, and Edwards did have the guts to show up and answer tough questions. I wouldn’t want that job, but at the same time one expects the potential VP to be ready to fill the shoes of the president at a moments notice, and Edwards just didn’t strike me as having that ability.
Sure he looked good and talked easily (being a trial lawyer, that’s part of the deal), but he got squashed on substance. Cheney wasn’t an ogre, despite being described as “…mean and grouchy…” by Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry’s chief campaign manager, in an after-the-debate interview with Tom Brokaw. Is that all Kerry fans can say?
I’m going to go out on the political blogger limb here, and ask a question that echoes my “Voting for ... the First Lady” post from back in August: which of the two men, if you had a really, really, deep-down, in-your-gut, down-to-the-wire decision to make, would you want as president if the worst happened, and Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry got incapacitated?
I know that I’ll probably get a whole bunch of responses for this, but do you want the “grandfather-in-chief” Cheney, or the trial-lawyer Edwards? Which one do you imagine as your “responsibly-grumpy” uncle or grandpa?
Respond
|
| Post game show |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 09:01 AM |
“We need a grumpy and mean vice president ... I think 55 million Americans probably want a grumpy and mean vice president.”
--Weekly Standard publisher Bill Kristol commenting on last night’s debate
As Michael Moretsky commented in his blog from the far reaches of New Jersey, it was hard to find that many people who actually watched the debate last night (though I was informed on several occasions that the Twins beat the Yankees during last night’s major league playoff action 1-0).
However, as I rode in this morning on Metro’s 255 across the floating bridge, conversation erupted among four passengers in front of me. I could not believe it, they were talking about the debate—actually debating the debate—it was so exciting, and my eaves-dropping so apparent that soon enough I was drawn in to the conversation.
To the person, they were amazed at how much more mature and capable Cheney seemed at running the country; that Edwards was too much flash, too young to really do the job if he had to.
It seems that recent attempts to demonize the Vice President may have worked in lowering expectations going into the debate. At hearing the “Cheney praise” my Republican heart began to soar (yes we do have hearts) though seconds later my dreams of a Cheney lead comeback vanished.
Several of my fellow 255 riders also felt that a political novice is preferable to a capable leader going in a perceived wrong direction. So in the end, maybe the debate had little impact. Yet one thing is for sure, substance prevailed over good hair and form. Score this one for the Bush/Cheney team.
Respond
|
| The veep debate |
| Posted by Jay Porter at 08:56 AM |
If Kerry and Edwards win, we can return to a time when policy is debated on the basis of fact, not the basis of ideology.
When I was, in my childhood, a good Young Republican, I remember how we decried the ideological purity of our enemies. Now, we hear that same kind of factless prose from both members of the GOP ticket.
The Politburo at its zenith was never as unified around message as the Bush- Cheney campaign. It shows, because whatever the question the Republicans
inevitably veer back towards their safe messages.
Tonight was proof of this, again, for me. While Edwards marshalled fact, Cheney held on to one discredited talking point after another and served those with sneers and chuckles. His favorite intro: "Gwen, I hardly know where to start." He also has no idea where to stop, especially when he' s parroting his favorite line of argument, slyly suggesting that Saddam Hussein attacked America on 9/11. Edwards shut him down every time--something our media sadly failed to do in the march to war.
I will say that Cheney, for all his flaws, would have been a far better president than George Bush. Granted, I may feel this way only because I was an English major and invariably prefer a man who can speak in complete sentences. This debate showed again that the two tickets are fundamentally unmatched--but Cheney comes much closer to matching Edwards than Bush could ever match Kerry.
As someone denied the right to marry, the moment where Cheney thanked Edwards for honoring Cheney's commitment to his lesbian daughter was moving. Cheney said he supported the president's right to set policy, but refused to defend it further. It was painful, and a reminder of the pain that so many families face as a result of Bush's commitment to sacrificing the full humanity of gays and lesbians to the most extreme faction of the Republican right. It was interesting to see Mary Cheney on stage after the debate-- she was barely allowed on camera during the GOP convention.
This campaign is all about what is allowed on camera, and who is allowed to speak. While the GOP ticket requires a loyalty oath to enter campaign events, Kerry and Edwards are speaking on front porches across America. The President's disconnect from reality should be even more apparent than usual when he faces the "town hall" crowd on Friday.
Respond |
October 05, 2004
| Were you watching? |
| Posted by Michael Moretsky at 10:13 PM |
As I write this we are 30 minutes into the debate of the vice-presidential candidates and I have to say this seems to be a much more equal debate in terms of ability and intelligence than the first presidential debate was. Cheney is clearly prepared and more, he knows how to say what is on his mind. Edwards clearly has his agenda also. He obviously wants to relate a certain message in this debate. Though not as entertaining, this debate is much more informative than the presidential debate was.
I am in Newark, NJ as I watch tonight’s VP debate. I was excited about going down to the lobby of the hotel I am staying in and watching the debate with people from all over the country and the world.
I got to the lobby early and got a good seat right in front of the large wide-screen TV ready to strike up a conversation and hear the thoughts and opinions of the others who had come down to watch as well. Sadly, no one did. There was a group of woman behind me chatting about a play they had seen in New York City. There were a couple business men with loose ties drinking beers and talking about marketing reports. There was one FEDEX driver who was actually watching the debate. Besides him, there was no one else.
In fact, the unrelated discussiona going on around me were so loud that I came back to my hotel room to watch the rest of the debate.
I saw a poll earlier today stating that most people would not change their vote based on the outcome of the VP debate. Maybe so, but I still feel this debate is very important. After all, there is a chance that this next VP might have to assume the duties of the presidency sooner than expected.
So, I am disappointed that at least in the hotel lobby in Newark, NJ there wasn’t more interest in the debate.
Respond
|
| Beauty and the Beast |
| Posted by Garrett Ryan Ferencz at 05:11 PM |
Around the water cooler there have been many words exchanged about the 2004 election. Today’s spotlight: the squaring off between Dick Cheney and John Edwards.
Not surprisingly, most of the comments centering on the VP battle in Cleveland were grounded in levity rather than policy. Even the most substantive comments verged on conspiracy theories about Cheney profiting on war (refuted by the non-partisan watchdog group Factcheck ), the mandatory draft (thanks Ian for setting that straight) and how much better Edwards's hair is than virtually anyone else in this race.
Though it should not be a surprise that the trial lawyer is a big favorite around this water cooler—the cooler itself is a product of attorney fees—I feel compelled to make a quick prediction about tonight’s rumble.
If you are looking to see who is the most polished, who looks the best, and who meets a media definition of the winner, I cannot imagine Edwards losing.
However, if the debate is listened to over the radio, if rhetoric is put aside and we all reflect on the differences in the polices we hear tonight, we might find the reason George Bush refused to head the call to jettison Dick Cheney from the ticket. Cheney has experience, he has a consistent voice, and more so than anyone has shown an ability to speak intelligently about the differences between the two candidates.
Respond |
| Can someone help Libby here? |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 03:13 PM |
According to the emails (and “close encounters”) I received in response to my last few blogs, I am a total idiot and I need to vote for Kerry.
Not one of the responses I got (including the two rather upset young Democrats who accosted me at my local coffee shop) had anything nice to say about Bush. However, all of them did provide me with something I have been looking for: a reason to vote FOR Kerry. Cement, God’s Honest Truth, non-anti-Bush reason to vote for Kerry. And they were all different! If I had known that all I needed to say “ I think Kerry looks like Skeletor” to get a response with some reasons to be pro-Kerry rather than anti-Bush, I would have opened my blogs with that very sentence every day!
Just a few more things:
#1 - I had two young ladies approach me when I went out for coffee with some friends this weekend – they thought I was a “total moron” for thinking that Bush “won” the debate and for even contemplating giving my vote to Bush.
They had a few good anti-Bush points, but not very many pro-Kerry opinions. It was interesting, to say the least, and cheap entertainment for early weekend morning. Ladies, if you can come up with some more good conversation for me, meet me back at the same place, same time and we’ll chat. Please tell me why I should vote for Kerry, not why I should NOT vote for Bush.
#2 -Yes, all of you out there in Cyber Land are correct when you think that I am a total dork for saying that the best person to fix something is the person who broke it. When I break my car, I don’t fix it myself, because I am not car-smart. The current president does not appear to be “war smart” and Kerry, having the experience in combat (which he constantly likes to refer to), probably is the man to do the job. I did not think of that, and for that, I apologize. (Thanks to “n” and William P. for pointing out my idiocy)
#3 - My mysterious emailer, “n”, made an extraordinarily good point in her email that I thought I should share: “I understand that not everyone warms to Kerry (though his respect and kindness towards his family is good enough for me), but a president needs to be qualified to do the job. He needs to know the issues so that he can make a good decision and to show good judgement (sic). Our lives are in his hands every day, so in the end, I find it reassuring that Kerry knows more than I do. A president should.”
One problem I still seem to have - I do not understand how Kerry can fix the situation Bush has put us in with taxes and Social Security and the like. I understand that Bush is not going to fix something that does not directly impact him or his “big business” buddies, but how is Kerry going to stem the bleeding? Does anyone have a website I can peruse that explains what is going on here?
Respond |
| No, Virginia, there will not be a draft |
| Posted by Ian Stewart at 08:24 AM |
Hey Stephen. You can rest easy, at least when it comes to being drafted.
What a wonderful, informative, and sometimes criminally misleading place the internet is. Anytime I hear a rumor like this, I always go to the internet equivalent of truth investigators, Snopes.com (check out the section on humor).
There, you’ll find your forwarded email almost word for word, and an explanation of the issue and why it’s highly unlikely to happen.
For those of you too lazy to click through (or have a phobia associated with clicking on any links I post) here’s the Cliff Notes version: Democrats in Congress are in the minority. That means they have virtually no power; instead of writing up bills and making laws, you spend your time devising ways to mess with who’s in charge.
Jimmy Doctor (Jim McDermott) and friends are pissed (as am I) at the way the Bushies and the Republican controlled Congress have been using and abusing the military. So they’ve sponsored this resolution.
A resolution, by the way, is known as a “sense of the house”, meaning it’s a general test the waters vote on what people think. It’s the relationship equivalent of telling that girl back in 5th grade that you like her, when you know full well girls have cooties.
McDermott is completely aware the bill isn’t going anywhere, but that’s not the point. The point is to focus the debate on the “backdoor” draft. Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Neo-Cons have so overstretched our military with the war in Iraq that they’re effectively “drafting” people by calling up the National Guard.(What the heck is a Neo-Con, anyway? Look here, with a nice Are You a Necon? bonus quiz. I’m a Liberal/Realist.)
Yes, it’s true, those who signed up for National Guard service know there is a chance they could be called up. But I would argue that the original intent of the National Guard was for use in an emergency military situation (like, for example, if the Soviets actually had attacked us like they did in my all-time favorite Saturday TV-11 special, Red Dawn ), natural disasters, or as a way for people to offer military service even if it isn’t their primary career. Not, as the Bushies have done, a way to enforce their misguided and wrongheaded worldview.
The Bushies have managed to use this “backdoor” draft without much backlash. Why institute an actual draft and take the heat for that when you can go the backdoor route?
It's possible McDermott’s bill (and the resulting chatter) will help focus attention on this military mismanagement by the Bushies. Kerry, for his part, has called for more active duty troops to help stop this backdoor draft
A fascinating discussion that won’t happen this cycle would be what if the US instituted mandatory service? I’m not necessarily talking military, but maybe one year of mandatory service for everyone in the country…it could be Vista Volunteers, Americorps , the Peace Corps, or military, the way Israel does.
Respond
|
October 04, 2004
| Br'er Bush |
| Posted by Jay Porter at 11:56 AM |
I received this mail from a reader this morning after Thursday's debate:
"Having watched the debate two times, I concluded that Kerry did not make much sense about his stand on the Iraq war. At least he agreed that Sadam [sic] was a dangerous leader in the Middle East and replacing him was ok. I don't understand his argument of not the right time and right place for the war even though he voted to go for the war. What make any one think that Kerry knows what would be the right time and right place for the war? That means he would have waited until Sadam [sic] does some thing horrible to this nation?"
My first impulse in responding to this is to say that Kerry wouldn't have whipped a grieving nation into a frenzy with fake intelligence about the "imminent threat" of Iraq.
Without Bush & Co.'s amazing sales pitch about why we should worry about Saddam instead of Osama (whom they couldn't find, so-- oh look-- shiny object! Over here!), I imagine we would have had a proper national discussion about
Saddam, worked with our allies, and eventually done whatever it would have taken to fully disarm him.
Oh yeah, except he had nothing to disarm!
But at the risk of being rude (and meeting my correspondent, a la Libby) I don't really think I can have an intelligent discussion with someone who is, at this late date, a believer in the discredited theory that Saddam had it in his capacity to do more than play boogeyman to the U.S.
So instead, I'll offer a children's tale.
What we've done in Iraq resembles nothing so much as the old story of
"Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby". (The fact that the term "tar baby" has sometimes been used in a derogatory manner should not blind us to the moral (and strategic) wisdom it contains).
In the story, crafty Br'er Fox creates an effigy out of sticky tar and connives Br'er Rabbit into attacking it. Complications ensue. Br'er Rabbit learns, after making a huge mess that there's nothing worse than attacking a big ball of tar, thinking it's a monster... Nothing, that is, except maybe attacking Iraq when you should be catching Osama and finding yourself locked in a guerrilla war with nothing resembling an exit strategy.
What's worse, our presence in Iraq has turned it into a giant tar factory... creating more terrorists, more outrage, and generally more messes we'll be cleaning up long after Br'er Bush has stopped doing the "hard work" of the Presidency.
Kerry proved to me during the debate that Bush is more Br'er Rabbit than he is presidential. Bush hammered away at one point: that no amount of tar would ever convince him that he has made a mistake. Nope, give him four more years and he'll get us even more intractably stuck. And you can bet he'll look at us with that smug smirk and tell us how "resolute" he is in fighting tar wherever it exists. Wow... "terror" even sounds like "tar" in his fake-Texas accent.
In closing, I'd like to hear from one of our Republican friends... how do you think Bush did? Sure you still want four more years of that?
Respond
|
| Will there be a draft? |
| Posted by Stephen Russell at 11:48 AM |
I thought I would be writing about the latest polls this morning, but instead I arrived at work and was immediately asked by my co-worker if I was under 26 years old. I said “yes, why?” and she forwarded me the following e-mail.
Mandatory Draft Legislation Please Read
Mandatory draft for men and women (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about. This literally effects [sic] everyone since we all have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes.
There is pending legislation in the house and senate (twin bills: S89 and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin as early as spring, 2005, just after the 2004 presidential election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed immediately. Details and links follow. This plan, among other things, eliminates higher education as a shelter and includes women in the draft. Also, crossing into Canada has already been made very difficult.
This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in detail here. Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will bring up the bill for you to read.
I checked it out. The bill hasn’t been active since February of 2003, and I couldn’t find anything that confirmed (or rejected) the e-mail’s claim that a draft could begin in June of 2005. I would also like to note that one of the bill’s cosponsors is none other than our very own Rep. Jim McDermott.
If someone knows any other details about the bill, such as its likelihood of being passed, please let me know.
To bring this into a larger perspective, where do the candidates stand on this issue? I assume that the President supports it, but Kerry has been making an awful lot out of his support for the war too, and that more resources (i.e., people) will be required to win it .
This does raise some very difficult moral questions for me, as someone who is eligble under this bill. Where does this leave me if I’m drafted? I strongly believe that, as a US citizen, I have an obligation to support my county. I draw huge benefits from an American middle-class way of life, so supporting this country is absolutely non-negotiable.
At the same time, I have very strong moral objections to the actions that our leaders have taken, and I cannot envision myself fighting (what I consider) their war.
Respond |
October 03, 2004
| Post-debate thoughts |
| Posted by Ian Stewart at 01:42 PM |
Kerry’s on the Right Track
I had a hard time sleeping the other night…too many thoughts swirling in my head. As a political junkie, the first presidential debate was the equivalent of a quadruple shot of espresso.
So many angles, so little time…so the one I have to return to began in the Great Debate Blog of ’04 between Garrett and yours truly.
Kerry, behind in the polls before the debate, had but one goal: change the dynamics of the race. Polls show voters nervous about backing Bush again, but not yet convinced Kerry’s the man for the job. Until last night, the Bushies have done a masterful job of creating a giant sinkhole on Kerry’s road to the White House with a pair of flip-flops.
Problem is, those shoes aren’t made for walking. They’re made for a sound bite. That’s how the flip flop started, sometime over the summer, when Rove & Co. first launched the test balloon. And man, did it soar.
Last night, when Bush tried to place the flip flops on Kerry’s feet, they crumbled. Kerry shifted the dynamics of the race by redefining his positions as strong leadership. When new information arises, you react to that information. That’s strong leadership; Kerry’s explanation of his positions restored his status in the minds of the critical undecided voters. That’s one step out of the hole.
Now, the Bush team is fast approaching the sinkhole Kerry’s team has rigged. Bush is a man of convictions. He’s a strong, resolute leader who, when the going gets tough, will do what he said he was going to do and get the job done. And darn it, that means staying the course, no matter how wrongheaded he may be.
This sinkhole is more like a black hole…Bush can’t avoid it without becoming what he’s dubbed Kerry. If he shifts on Iraq now and acknowledges the failures (like he probably should have done months ago), he becomes the flip flopper. Bush steps into the hole, Kerry emerges.
(After all that, Sidney Blumenthal beat me to it. Fiddlestix! )
Et tu, Rové?
Respond
|
| A boost for Kerry, a bust for Bush |
| Posted by Shalini Gujavarty at 01:31 PM |
It's uncanny how Slate anticipates the topic I want to blog on - like they did with, "Daydreaming About Dean - Would he have fared better than Kerry?"
Yesterday, just before the debate, I was brooding that no one would have been in doubt as to where Dean stood on Iraq, 32 days before Election Day.
However, after seeing Kerry debate yesterday, I understand the Kerry Seems More Presidential argument a little better. A consensus is forming that Kerry emerged as the clear winner. Even editors at the Weekly Standard offered faint praise to Kerry on the Fox News panel. And of the 27,507 readers who had participated in the Wall Street Journal poll at 6pm EST, 68% thought Kerry won, 24% Bush, and 9% called it a tie.
My friends were inundated with Howard Dean propaganda for much of last year and new acquaintances think politics is an awkward subject to bring up, so no one has yet directly asked me how I intend to vote.
That changed two days ago in LA. Bored and frustrated with the congestion on Santa Monica Blvd and 40 minutes after he picked me up at LAX, my Armenian cabbie turned in his seat and surprised me by asking me whom I intended to vote for. I told him Kerry. Mildly disappointed, he explained that he had nephews in Iraq and that the media's version of chaos and anarchy was completely off and therefore he supported Bush. I asked him if he was afraid for his tip from passengers who disagreed with him. He said that some people had become angry but he continued to do it and shrugged.
For the record, I tipped him a standard 15%.
My favorite politics site is The Note from ABC News. The site surveys media coverage and has a gossipy, insider flavor to it. The Note cites an article by Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe (Kerry's hometown newspaper), which captures a pivotal moment in the debate: "Bush's costly gaffe: IN THE MIDDLE of a disjointed, subpar performance on an evening when he could have locked away a second term, President Bush made an unusually silly attempt to link the terrorists who attacked the United States on 9/11 with the dictator who used to rule Iraq. Saddam Hussein's Iraq had to be invaded last year, said Bush in a feeble summing up, because the enemy attacked us."
During this campaign, that's the question I've wondered about the most - Does Bush know who the enemy is?
As usual, the Daily Show was at its best in mocking the media and its particular obsessions . . . I really enjoyed Samantha Bee's piece on the undecided voter.
Respond |
October 01, 2004
| Libby leaning toward Bush now |
| Posted by Libby Liming at 11:39 AM |
Before I start my entry today, I want to say that I definitely do NOT know everything. I know very little about politics and how they actually work, and I think there is just too much information for me to be completely informed. If you believe I am horribly misinformed, please feel free to click on the “respond” weblink at the bottom of my post or on the “e-mail” link under my ugly mug to the right of the postings. I love getting feedback, even if it’s only a short note to tell me I’m a complete idiot. :)
I ABSOLUTELY agree with fellow blogger Michael when he says that no one actually wins a debate . I think it’s the connection with the people, not what you say in a debate that helps a candidate the most in an election. True, if you speak in circles and tell lies that will hurt you, but conversely, if you talk over the heads of people like me, you also lose them.
I must just be slow, as Kerry just did not pull ahead with me. I know I’m putting my life on the line, but if I had a gun to my head right now and had to vote for SOMEONE, I would have to say my vote would be for Bush.
Before I found the transcripts of the debates online this morning (I’m a much better visual learner than aural learner - thanks again MSNBC!! ), I was trying to remember everything and having a really rough time. I tried very hard to listen to everything and attempted to put it all together myself, but I got really bored. (It was late, and I think I have a short attention span, like those I blogged about a couple of days ago…)
I’m sorry, but I want more information (again). I know, I’m insatiable when it comes to the information in this election, but I don’t want to make a rash decision in choosing a president. I want to know how Kerry will back the statements he made last night. I want to know if Bush is changing strategy to “fix” the situation in Iraq, or whether he’s just going to keep on plugging on in the same direction he’s been going the last 2-3 years.
IMHO, I think Kerry is not connecting with me. He reminds me too much of Skeletor (does anyone else remember He-Man?) and he’s just such a stiff that I cannot see him leading our country with any sort of personable presence. (However, he does command a strong presence and seems like he would take control swiftly and completely.)
On the other hand, Bush reminds me of a little kid dressing up in his dad’s suit. Literally. He would scrunch his face up like he just tried Brussels sprouts for the first time when Kerry said something he didn’t agree with. I’m more inclined to vote Bush in so he can fix what he’s broken, as he has more experience leading a governing body than Kerry has. (i.e. Bush has been a governor and a president…I believe Kerry has only been a senator? Correct me if I am wrong, please!)
I’m back on that proverbial fence…hoping someone gives me a nice hard shove in one direction or the other…it’s getting a little uncomfortable.
Also, I had the great opportunity to watch the debates from the Seattle Times HQ last night, with Eric Lacitis. (Check out the article…please don’t laugh at my ugly picture! )
Respond
|
| First debate reflections |
| Posted by William Thomas Mari at 10:35 AM |
Well, I’ve just sat down to write about my reflections on the first of three presidential debates, and right away, I find myself struck by an important aspect of the debate itself: the very real, nitty-gritty, in-the-dirt, dare I say, spontaneity of it.
Despite all the pre-debate talk of “Oh, it’s just going to a big sound-bite, an extra-long, albeit live, political ad…”, I personally found the whole deliberation rather…dynamic.
Voices and eyebrows got a little raised, either man exuded his own brand of leadership style, and there was a great deal of material covered. It reminded me of how a doctoral thesis presentation must go. In a way, it also resembled a final exam, with hard topics that had to be discussed clearly and understandable.
Questions, rebuttals, and counter-rebuttals were fired back and forth with an almost surprising velocity. You have to know your stuff, of course, if you want to remain or become president, but it seemed that downplaying the debate was unwise.
True, Kerry didn’t pound his shoe on the podium like Khrushchev, and Bush didn’t wear any cowboy boots, and the fact that there were lots of rules can’t be ignored either, but ask any high school or college-level debate team member, and he/she can affirm that all real debates have very firm “rules of engagement”, as host Jim Lehrer put it.
I thought the first debate was actually quite good. If you’re a Kerry fan, you appreciated your candidate’s boldness in going after the president’s decisions. If you’re a Bush fan, you probably liked the way Mr. Bush succinctly repeated his stance, and didn’t waver from it. Both men held their own, and in that sense, the debate was a sort of de facto draw.
From the perspective of Americans who actually watched the debates, and ignored the “oh-it’s-just-an-hour-and-a-half-ad” hype, I think the debate was a solid win, and I hope the other debates are just as interesting.
Respond |
| One debate won't decide the race |
| Posted by Carl Gipson at 10:29 AM |
During Thursday’s debates I must say I enjoyed the somewhat small respite from the normal rhetorical bantering so characteristic of the parties today. Both Kerry and Bush did a respectable job at keeping on message and trying not to wilt under the lights.
But then things quickly deteriorated in “spin alley” no sooner than the candidates respective families joined them on stage.
I mean if anyone saw DNC chair Terry McAuliff and RNC chair Ed Gillespie go atit, you’d think there would be more civility between two rival toddler gangs (with the higher possibility that the tiny tots will actually accomplishing anything).
Kerry and Bush stayed mostly on their prospective messages with little bantering and bloviating. Kerry was hot on style and the President handled the substance. Kerry’s stance on a number of issues got me thinking.
Will bringing France and Germany to Iraq solve all our problems there? Of course not, and the mere idea of that is insulting. Will our current allies be thrilled to know they’re troops will be serving under a commander in chief who thinks they’re in the wrong war?
Probably not, but if Kerry thinks he can sit down with Kim Jong Il and talk “man to man” and get him to disarm his nuclear stockpile, well then I guess getting the French to fight for a lost cause might not seem like too difficult of a task.
Already the talking heads are blathering about Bush’s annoyed looks, his hunched posture and his protruding devil horns (ok, that was just The Stranger’s opinion), but his mannerisms paled in comparison to Gore’s sighs in 2000 and many other of the historical gaffes during past Presidential debates. And if Bush’s somewhat smirking look came as a shock to the pundits when Bush was basically called a liar in front of tens of millions of people, well I’m just one of the few who might excuse him for acting human while on camera.
One debate won’t swing the race. There aren’t that many voters who are undecided.
Respond
|
| Not impressed with the debate |
| Posted by Sierra Michels-Slettvet at 09:53 AM |
The debate ended and my only reaction was, "Shoot, now I've got to think of something intelligent to say about that."
Neither candidate said anything unexpected (as expected), nor anything particularly strong, nor much with more than four syllables, but that too was predictable.
In fact, more than anything, I'm wondering if the concept of debate is completely antiquated. Perhaps years ago, when exposure to candidates' platforms was more limited or their character and oratory proficiency were not broadcast daily, they served a purpose.
I think the AP made the point best, when I saw they released (accidentally, I assume) their debate coverage at 8 am the morning before the debates (9/30), commenting on Kerry's scholarly appearance and both men's discussion of the War on Terror.
Moreover, the coverage of the pre-debate concessions demanded by each candidate, that they shake hands for no longer than three seconds, that the podiums be placed such that Kerry's height advantage was not immediately apparent, that no candidate be broadcast while looking at his watch...
So what did we get out of it? In typical college student style, a drinking game. A drink for any Vietnam allusion, references to Bush Sr, four syllable words, mispronunciations of nuclear.
And what did we actually want? Foreign policy discussion involving more than terrorism, and a concrete plan from either candidate for procession in Iraq; that's not so much to ask for, is it?
Respond
|
|
|
|
|
|
October 2005
|
|
| S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
| 2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
| 9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
| 16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
| 23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
| 30 |
31 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to top