Bush and debating

Painful to watch

Published on October 2, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

For me, watching Bush debate is a lot like watching my son play baseball. While I may root for him to do well, I feel helpless in being able to make him do well.

Like when my son is batting, I try to will it that he'll hit the ball. Similarly, while observing Bush, I try to will it that he'll nail a point.

So when Kerry says lamely, "I consider nuclear proliferation to greatest threat to our nation." I'm using all my mental energy to try to get Bush to say something like "Well Senator, I consider going after the blood thirsty terrorists who are trying to murder Americans to be our top priority."

Bush isn't as quick on his feet as Kerry. Kerry, a former prosecutor, is in his own in having to put together a compelling argument on the fly. Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 debates because Gore came across as a haughty lecturerer. Kerry won't make that mistake.

One might argue that Bush lost the debate on style -- which is what really matters but won it in terms of substance. Bush's arguments are stronger IMO but he isn't able to put those arguments forward in a compelling way.

Kerry's Iraq position is incoherent. Idealogues on the left may be content to parrot the line "Kerry voted for the president to have authorization to use force so that he would have more leverage to get the UN to put those inspectors back." But any clear thinking American is not going to fall for that. The US did not have 200,000 troops sitting in Kuwait as mere bargaining chips. Kerry knew, as did every other senator know, that barring a miracle (i.e. complete capitulation by Saddam) that US troops would be invading Iraq before the hot weather returned (by March 2003 in other words). To argue anything else is simply being naive at best or untruthful at worst.

But that's where being a good public speaker comes into play. Kerry is able to put forth his disengenous position because Bush isn't able to put forward a simple and effective counterargument.

And those of us on the side lines can only look on helplessly. Just like I do when I watch my kid playing baseball.

Comments (Page 4)

Gene Nash

on Oct 04, 2004

COL Gene
The saying of e e cummings comes to mind, "Consistancy is the hobglobben of little minds". Works for me to describe the , "stay the Course" mind of George W.

Actually it was Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay "Self-Reliance." The full quote being, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

I find your arguments as unfortunate as your quoting ability.

bakerstreet

on Oct 04, 2004

"Actually it was Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay "Self-Reliance." The full quote being, "A foolish consistency..."

Keyword being "foolish". Granted, Dems seem to feel that any consistancy is foolish. Why else would they pick a guy who fought a war and then was against a war, wants to save the nation but spent decades in Congress bargaining it away, and who has finally ended up once again being for a war, and then against it...

Evidently a foolish INconsistancy is easily overlooked by people with an irrational hatred for Bush...

COL Gene

on Oct 04, 2004

Reply to Gene NASH

THANKS FOR THE CORRECTION. However the application to Bush is proper. I went back and re-read the quotation which is: A foolish consistancy is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen ....

Dark-Star

on Oct 04, 2004

http://dark-star.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=30255

This is just an example of GW's ability to speak. All I can say is.. "Wow."

Myrrander

on Oct 04, 2004

Gosh, if we base going to war on UN resolutions that have been ignored, then I suppose Israel is our next target. After all, there are more UN resolutions against Israel than any other country in the world.

BradleyGunner

on Oct 05, 2004

Till you have served on the frontline and whitnessed firsthand what those so caled "peacefull Iraqi's" are REALLY like, piss off.

We are an Occupying Force now. When we first rolled in we were cheered, now children throw rocks at us. Bush went in hell bent thinking it would be the same result of Desert Storm of his daddy's term, he was wrong, DEAD wrong.

Saddam was a Tyrant yes but he was not as dangerous as Bin Laden. Have we found Bin Laden...no? So what if we ousted Saddam, he didn't construct the plans to fly aircraft into the Trade Center, Bin Laden did. So Bush pulls our forces from the mission to find this maniac and dispatch him fortwith to deal with his shortcomings in Iraq.

Everyone seems to forget that the whole basis for Bush's invasion was WMD's. Have we found any..?? Hell I found more during the Gulf War in 90 than are found now. I am a Veteran, I have Friends there now, I have friends here that I buried because of Bush and his ideas. It is ones Constitutional RIGHT to question this war(Yes even Kerry had that right 30 years ago). Men and women DIED for this right. I got shot at so people could sit on thier DUFF and post crap on the internet, safe and sound in thier homes. When asked if they would serve to protect that said right? By what I have read in most of these resposes in the majority of the threads, most wouldn't lift a finger.

drmiler

on Oct 05, 2004

Reply #51 By: BradleyGunner (Anonymous) - 10/5/2004 5:59:26 PM
It is ones Constitutional RIGHT to question this war(Yes even Kerry had that right 30 years ago). Men and women DIED for this right. I got shot at so people could sit on thier DUFF and post crap on the internet, safe and sound in thier homes. When asked if they would serve to protect that said right? By what I have read in most of these resposes in the majority of the threads, most wouldn't lift a finger.

Yes he has the right to speak out. But does he have the right to lie to the senate commitee about what other troops had *supposedly* done? Maybe you should go read the transcript of his testimony and *then* tell us what you think of him.

Draginol

on Oct 06, 2004

Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. So are the terrorists. And while not an ideal solution, I consider it preferable to Americans fighting and dying here.

The terrorists ALWAYS will find an excuse for murder. Bill Clinton, who I think most will agree was about as nice as the US is going to get in foreign policy, was the President during the first series of Al Qaeda terrorist attacks and when the planning for the 9/11 attack took place.

Americans wouldn't have been dying in Okinawa in 1945 if Americans weren't fighting there. But then again, they wouldn't have been fighting there if it weren't for Pearl Harbor.

After the election, if Bush wins, I expect things to get a lot rougher on the terrorists. A LOT rougher.

Deference

on Oct 06, 2004

Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. So are the terrorists. And while not an ideal solution, I consider it preferable to Americans fighting and dying here

It's cynically speculative to think that Americans would be dying here if we weren't in Iraq. Let's try preventative medicine, not preemptive deception.

Draginol

on Oct 06, 2004

It's cynical? Gosh, I seem to recall 4 commercial airliners being hijacked with 3 of them being crashed into buildings in an effort to murder as many Americans as possible.

So you'll have to excuse my - ahem - cynicism to think that it pretty likely that these guys would like to do more of that. Keeping them busy on their turf gives them less leisure time to plan more 9/11's. But that's just me, the cynic.

Deference

on Oct 06, 2004

It's cynical? Gosh, I seem to recall 4 commercial airliners being hijacked with 3 of them being crashed into buildings in an effort to murder as many Americans as possible.

Yep, that happened, but you are betting on what you say will happen if we don't "kill ourselves some terrorists" in Iraq, not what happened.

It is important to address the protection of our borders (not granting illegal aliens amnesty), rethink our immigration policy, and protect infrastructure vulnerabilities, not place our already thin line of troops smack dab in the middle of the holy land fundamentalists will rush to die for like ants on a honeypot.

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 06, 2004

It is important to address the protection of our borders (not granting illegal aliens amnesty), rethink our immigration policy, and protect infrastructure vulnerabilities, not place our already thin line of troops smack dab in the middle of the holy land fundamentalists will rush to die for like ants on a honeypot.

Yet you blow this all out when you say you support Kerry, who has the EXACT SAME IDEAS ON THE SAME ISSUES AS THE MAN YOU ARE AGAINST, yet supposedly because it is a new face with a different name and different party the ideas are not the same, why support the same ideas from a different man?

- GX

Deference

on Oct 06, 2004

It's simple, Bush policy hasn't served us well these last years, the country is headed not in the wrong direction but into the toilet. Kerry may or may not do any better, but I'm willing to give the most viable alternative the chance, if he fails, his ass is gone too. My statement above certainly refers to my own personal bent on the situation, observations I think only idealogues can be blind to in regards to our current policy failures. In reference to your assertion that Kerry has the exact same ideas on the issues as the man I am against, I think you know that to be a misnomer, otherwise, you wouldn't raise objection with my support for Kerry, correct?

RedneckHunter

on Oct 06, 2004

The notion that there would be no terrorist threat to America if we had just left Iraq alone is idiotic

No, Iraq was NOT a threat to our National Security as to the level of Afghanistan. Bin Laden made the plans to attack us, Saddam was just full of hot air in that sense. Granted, in the future there may have been a need but we needed to take care of the immediate threat of Bin Laden first, before jumping into a Nation that is so divided that it boils down to religios sects.

"We have no long term goals in Iraq"

Then why are engineers building permanent bases?

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 06, 2004

I think you know that to be a misnomer, otherwise, you wouldn't raise objection with my support for Kerry, correct?

Border Policy, come on and tell me that is misnomer there. You can't because both have the exact same view on it.

Despite differing on one or two 'red herring' or fringe issues they both have the same ideas with basically the same plans for all the main issues.

Vote for the lesser evil is synonymous now with voter stupidity or voter ignorance.

Last time I checked our constitution says nothing about ONLY TWO PARTIES CAN EXIST.

Seriously what good is 'elk shit' compared to 'moose shit' they are both shit. (Thank Gideon for those terms)

- GX

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!