October 01, 2004

The Ninja on The Debate

To be perfectly honest, I only watched about the first fifty minutes of it. But since both candidates managed to repeat their favorite catchphrases about five times in that fifty minutes, I think I got the gist of their message.

I found this question intriguing: "Mr. President, do you believe that if Mr. Kerry was elected there would be a greater likelihood of a September 11 type attack?"

Bush avoided answering, which was smart. Kerry didn't answer it either, which might not have been as smart... but it certainly made sense. I believe both candidates were required, according to the debating rules, to leave their crystal balls at home.

At the very least both candidates impressed me with their brevity. They didn't run over their time limits, which I've seen others do so often. That's a pet peeve of mine.

Kerry's big point was that he had been in Vietnam. Bush's big point was that he had been President. [Yawn.] Since not one President in our history was in Vietnam, and every one of our Presidents got the job with no previous experience, these seem like pretty fluffy arguments.

On some questions, Kerry seemed a little vague. "I'll create a real international coalition." Yeah? How?

But the thing I found most interesting was Bush pounding on this message: "You can't be the Commander in Chief and say we're in the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." As I heard it, his argument was essentially "We're in this, so we have to maintain the same focus we've always had."

I don't buy that. His logic implies that, even if the invasion was wrong, we must pay lip service to it. His logic says one of two things:

  • That disagreeing with the Bush Administration on the war necessarily invalidates a person as a potential President, or,

  • If Kerry does believe that the invasion was poorly handled and poorly timed, he should lie about that, for the good of the troops.

    • Talk about a false dichotomy.

    Are our armed forces (and our nation at large) so thick-headed that they can't wrap their tiny brains around the possibility that someone could successfully continue -- and perhaps bring to completion -- the action in Iraq without believing in how we got there in the first place? Personally, I think the American people are a bit smarter than that.

    Watching the debate did crystalize for me the basic strategy of the two campaigns. Kerry wants us to think that Bush made mistakes, and that he (Kerry) wouldn't repeat them. Bush wants us to think that he (Bush) has a strong conviction that he's right, and he'll see us through no matter what.

    So, I have to ask myself: Would I rather have a President who made a choice I disagreed with but stuck to it, or a President who seemed to vacillate on that topic and now agrees with me? Which is more important: stability or correctness? (I'm defining "correctness" as "agreeing with me". Kind of silly, but work with me here.)

    I think Bush really believes, and has no doubt, that the invasion was the right thing to do. But he's made a point of saying that it's wrong to even question it. That I can't accept. Of course, I'd like to think that such logic would still apply if I agreed with the war, but that's clearly false. In such a case, Bush would be both stable and correct, which is the ideal case.

    So I have to choose. Even if Kerry is a flip-flopper, then he'll agree with me (i.e. "be correct") at least some of the time.

    Posted by Russell Lutz in Current Affairs & Politics at October 1, 2004 01:51 PM

    Trackback Pings

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://cuzwesaidso.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/792

    Comments

    Even if Kerry is a flip-flopper, then he'll agree with me (i.e. "be correct") at least some of the time.
    A stopped clock is correct twice a day.

    Are you sure you're not listening to Neal Bush or Rupert Bush or someone? GW Bush has made a point of saying that it's American to question the war. He opened his debate last night by stating that he understood that many Americans disagree with his decision. I've never heard him say that it's wrong to question the war.

    Perhaps if you had bothered to listen to the entire debate it might have become more clear. The message he delivered was, "you can't be Commander-in-Chief and change your mind on the correctness of action as the political winds change." That is a fair and true statement to make, and a relevant attack to make on Kerry, who, by the way, did deliver a better debate performance last night.

    Posted by: Rip Rowan [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 1, 2004 05:19 PM

    Bush made two separate points about Kerry's view on the war:

    First, he said that Kerry changing his tune is a strike against him. If he changed his tune to get votes, then, yes, that's a strike against him. (And this is, incidentally, the most likely scenario, I'll admit.) If he changed his tune because he changed his mind, then it's a mark in his favor. Changing your mind based on increased knowledge of a situation is a sign of intelligence.

    But second, and more important to me, Bush said, clearly and often, that Kerry's statements alone -- that the war was wrong -- make him an invalid choice for President.

    So, in your opinion, did he mean that Kerry's view is what invalidates him as a candidate, or merely that he voiced it?

    Posted by: Russell Lutz at October 1, 2004 05:51 PM

    Perhaps if you had bothered to listen to the entire debate it might have become more clear.

    FYI, I watched the rest of the debate over the weekend. Strangely, the extra forty minutes did not perceptably alter my overall opinion of it.

    :)

    Pretty much the only new tidbit was their wrangling over how to handle North Korea: as a part of six-way talks, or bilaterally.

    Posted by: Russell Lutz at October 4, 2004 11:55 AM