|
 |
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 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 2004
|
|
| 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