I've been real quiet - pretty much like out trip to Lancaster PA last week. I've been back, but computers have been kindof stressful lately so I've often left it turned off when I got home or just read news and stuff - also haven't had any subjects jump out at me to blog about.
The Presidential debate was a big disappointment to me. I haven't changed my mind, I'm still voting for President Bush, but I thought he came off sounding unprepared. It was bad enough that I turned off the TV after an hour and read the closing comments on NRO the next morning. I thought Kerry sounded very polished. Comparing the debate to sports, I think I would describe it as hitting a single. He's on base, another batter up tomorrow. The debate was not a victory however. There are a few problems Kerry has though, and he can't change them through any amount of preparation or smooth speech: his voting record, his varying positions, and his statements to the Winter Soldier Investigation. I was talking with one of my erstwhile Unitarian Universalist cohorts last night at a dinner party (imagine someone like Ellsworth Toohey from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead), who said that he really appreciated the debate, it was so much more democratic than all that ugly campaigning. On the other side of the room, another woman was talking about how great the 527 groups were, inspiring grassroots participation, and her involvement with George Soros's America Coming Together. At one of these dinner parties last year, the discussion was centered around the need for more campaign finance reform, to get private money out of politics, and to have publicly financed campaigns. Amazing how the outlook has changed when the rich donor is supporting Democrats.
I acknowledged that Senator Kerry did a good job in the debate, but I also expressed the point of view that negative campaigning serves a purpose.
He said "no! It's just a bunch of lies and distortions."
I said "so? A person's voting record is public. Public statements and so on."
He said "yes, but it's distorted. There's all sorts of compromises and details missed in examining one's voting record."
And I said, "But still, how one votes over a long period of time reveals core beliefs, and should be a picture of how one would vote in the future"
I acknowledge that a lot of what this man said is true. There are lots of convolutions in legislative procedures, but there are strong currents of belief underlying those votes. John Kerry has consistently voted pro-abortion. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. These votes speak louder than his token statements that "life begins at conception" but he isn't willing to impose his values on others (he hasn't thought through what that implies morally, or he literally thinks it should be legal to murder people if one has no religious compunction against doing so), and his statement that marriage is between a man and a woman (but isn't willing to take any action to prevent a court from mandating otherwise). And of course there are the Senator's votes to cut intelligence spending and defese spending. My sparring partner seemed to think that none of this should matter. Zell Miller's speech? "Doesn't count! He was angry, not honest" (as if one can't be angry and honest - sheesh!).
Still, he would not be convinced. He asserted that the candidates' statements should be considered at face value, with absolutely no consideration of their past (yeah, right), their character, or their ability to deliver what they promise. Actually, it's more likely he's going to vote for the letter "D", and I think it's likely he's voted that way for a very long time now.
He asserted that the candidates' statements should be considered at face value, with absolutely no consideration of their past (yeah, right), their character, or their ability to deliver what they promise.
Interesting observation, that being that consideration should be given to the candidates' pasts. One of the candidates has been a solid, dedicated scholar, served honorably in the military and spoke out publically about things he saw while at war. The other candidate spent his youth getting drunk, doing below average work at schools his dad got him into and got out of serving in a war he publically and vociferously said he believed in.
When it comes to character, Kerry's past shows me he's been solid for a very long time, while Bush's shows me he will not put himself at risk for something he states he believes in. The fact that Bush declares himself to now be "born again" does not, in my opinion, suddenly give him a clean character. You may disagree with some of Kerry's beliefs, but he's been living by his stated values for a long, long time, while Bush wants us to either forgive his early years full of bad judgements or not believe they even happened.
When it comes to personal character, it's an easy choice between the two men. I can see there are some clear disagreements about some issues so I can understand choosing the man who supports the issues that are important to you. Certainly I supported Clinton despite some evidence that he used some bad personal judgement. He is not a person I personally hold up as someone with a high sense of character. But I agree with a lot of his stands on issues important to me, so he got my vote.
Posted by: Sue Unruhe at October 7, 2004 10:04 PMWell, Sue, I guess it goes without saying that we disagree. For starters, I am willing to give President Bush some credit for his born-again experience. As for his drinking problem, that's in his past and I'm willing to forgive that. Besides, I really don't know how serious it was, except for his admission that if left alone it would have destroyed his marriage. I had a similar motivation for becoming a Christian myself - I didn't see what I could contribute to my marriage by myself, indeed I had personal habits of mine that would have slowly but surely torn it down.
As for the other allegations, I don't think there's any evidence that President Bush had below average performance in college, he did get an MBA, does a below-average student do that? Nor is serving in the National Guard exactly avoiding serving in Vietnam, it wasn't like he fled to Canada or England. National Guardsmen have been sent to combat in the past, not so much back then, but it was possible.
I, like you, voted for President Clinton, but when I saw that the Democrats play by a different set of rules than the Republicans, I decided that I wouldn't vote for a Democrat until there was a simple acknowledgement of "the rule of law" from the Democrats, an acknowledgment that rules apply to both sides.