Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Debates and things

October 5th, 2004 Viewed 1874 times

There are a lot of heartening articles out there.  My favorite is one from Dennis Prager.  Here’s the part I like the best:

Here are direct quotes from John Kerry in the debate.

On staying in Iraq:

“I’m not talking about leaving. I’m talking about winning.”

“Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we’re there. We have to succeed. We can’t leave a failed Iraq.”

On leaving Iraq:

“And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there …”

“I believe that when you know something’s going wrong, you make it right. That’s what I learned in Vietnam.”

What was it that John Kerry “learned in Vietnam?” To leave a war he regarded as a mistake.

On America acting alone:

“I’ll never give a veto to any country over our security.”

On America acting only with world support or within an alliance:

“But if and when you do it (act alone), Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test …”

And what if acting alone does not pass “the global test”? Then presumably we won’t act alone. Kerry made references to the need to be in Iraq in alliance with other nations eight times.

On the war being a mistake:

“This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment.”

“The president made a mistake in invading Iraq.”

“The war is a mistake.”

On the war being important enough to have to win:

“I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that.”

After hearing Kerry call the war a mistake, the moderator Jim Lehrer asked the logical question: “Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

John Kerry’s answer: “No, and they don’t have to, providing we have the leadership that I’m offering.”

Now what does that response, arguably the most important thing the senator said in the debate, mean? Does it mean that American soldiers won’t die for what John Kerry continually labels a mistake because he will prosecute the war more effectively? Or does it mean that Americans won’t die for this mistaken war because he will leave Iraq and then there will be no mistake to die for?

The answer, again, is that it can mean either.

I’m glad someone was actually keeping track of what Kerry said and didn’t say.  I have to say that since I wasn’t “keeping score” I missed all of this.  I think the fact that it was so drawn out lead to that confusion.  I think that I would be upset if I were Bush at the fact that he continually changes position.  Had I been Bush’s prep team, I’d make sure that Bush keeps track of what Kerry’s saying so he can do more “didn’t you just say…” and that would help a lot.  Let Kerry work himself out of his statements.

Bush vs. Kerry

October 1st, 2004 Viewed 1904 times

Last night’s debate was long!  My wife left about two thirds of the way through for bed.  In my opinion, it was too long on Iraq without saying much!  The other thing that debates miss is fact checking during it.  What I would really like to see is a buzzer sound every time someone gets a fact wrong.  For instance, there were many statements that the President had to correct Kerry on.  A buzzer would have helped there tremendously.

Critique of the President

The President looked/acted like I do when I’m tired (which, with two young children happens often).  He had trouble recalling what he was going to say.  He fumbled with “the day before 9/10” in which he mixed
two different ways of saying acting like 9/11 never happened.  His body language on some of the wide shots made him look agitated, and my wife noticed a smirk.

I thought his best lines were to do with avoiding sending mixed messages and denigrating our allies.  He also made good points regarding actually talking with our allies instead of saying that he will talk with them.  I thought he answered the critiques that he was “doing nothing” well.   I don’t know if the tactic of addressing Kerry’s stump speeches carried that well, since undecideds may not be listening to stump speeches, and some people don’t even know positions!

Critique of the Senator

The Senator had a lot to prove here.  He was impressive in his presence.  I thought he stayed pretty general on things, and used Vietnam much more than I thought he would.  I wish that he would have gotten the “what do you think about the other guy” question too.  Some things just didn’t sound accurate– like when he claimed to never accuse the President of lying.

I thought he was articulate as he could have been.  I thought he appeared knowledgeable, and did a good
job communicating what he previously said in nuanced ways.  If this was the first time you’d heard both of them, you would definitely find Kerry likable.

I think Kerry won this one, not so much because of facts, etc., but because he came across as someone you could trust– had you not been paying attention up to now.  And that’s where the President can improve his game.

Voting on Election Day

September 23rd, 2004 Viewed 1859 times

Bert Prelutsky has an article today about voting— something I’ve been thinking around for a while.  The Founders definitely wanted people with a stake in the game to be voting.  Now we’ve come so far as to herd people like cattle to the polling place telling them to vote for our guy.  My feeling when I hear about all this busing and other means to get people to the polling places is, if it’s important to them why aren’t they finding a way to get there?

Now, before you call me a meanie, I’m not saying that people with disabilities or the inability to travel shouldn’t have a means provided for them should they so desire– maybe an internet sign up page or something.  What I am against is this– “I’m coming by to fill this bus to bring people who wouldn’t have voted otherwise to the polls because I know they know nothing but that they will vote for the guy with the D or the R next to their name.”

Who are you going to vote for?

July 30th, 2004 Viewed 1808 times

It’s interesting, thinking about the upcoming Presidential election and who to vote for.  I’ve heard and read of many people on all sides of the issues bemoaning the fact that the two major candidates are either fuzzy about who they are as a ploy to get the center votes.  Either that, or the idea that certain promises and  stances that the hearer believed the candidate really had were not followed once elected.

A relative of mine believes that she should vote her conscience and is voting for Peroutka of the  Constitutional Party.  She believes it’s not an option to just vote for the lesser of two evils.

Along this line, Allan Wall states in his recent column that the evangelicals are big enough that they shouldn’t just roll over or capitulate to the Republican party because he’d be better than Kerry.

On the other hand, there are a multitude of articles talking about how Kerry is being anything other than himself during this campaign.

Robert Novak states that one of the biggest things for the Dems is judicial selection in the next term, even though it isn’t mentioned much.  There is a lot of people out there that believe that the Supreme Court gave President Bush the victory in 2000 and believe that if Bush has his way that he will get anti-abortion, anti-gay rights people on the bench who will immediately begin imposing their will on the people.  Kind of like the way the courts are doing it now.

Then of course is all the commotion caused by accounts that Kerry reenacted some of his war footage, that he doesn’t know where he stands on issues– standing in the grey as much as he can.

So, who to vote for?  The important thing is to vote because your voice must be heard.  They question of who is best decided by you.  Conscience?  Best chance to win?  What would happen if all voted conscience?  It’s an interesting question.

The Lack of Space

February 17th, 2004 Viewed 2235 times

In case you are seeing what I am seeing– it appears that my last post suffers from a lack of space– or spaces. I’ve tried twice to fix it, but to no avail. I will endeavor to fix it in the near future. Just so you don’t think that I’ve missed it or have a broken space bar!

Bush vs. Kerry? Should be interesting. Is the hatred for Bush enough to give John Kerry the Presidency? Should it? Would it be better to have different parties in control of Congress and the Presidency? Should you vote for someone based on electability?

All of these questions, and so few answers… yet.


Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.