|
 |
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 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 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