I am watching the post-debate commentary on MSNBC...anyone care to share his/her thoughts on the speakers? Open forum.
(dare I say that I am too proud of my alma mater's involvement in tonight's debate!)
Diary of a one-time relaxed classical-schooling parent in New York City... A is in 10th Grade for the 2007-08 school year and is no longer homeschooling as of this year. You are welcome to check out the archives or read my latest banter. Email maitresse AT gmail DOT com
10 comments:
They both seemed to do an equally even job in their presentations, as in, there was no clear winner, although Kerry kept Bush on the defensive.
Kerry horrified me by not once, but twice, asserting to "kill the terrorists."
Physically, Bush appeared weaker, washed out. The juxtaposition during camera cuts made this most noticeable. He's looking more and more like Alfred E. Neuman everyday. Kerry's comparison of his stance to Reagan and Kennedy only made me think, "Reagan hair, Kennedy horseface and accent." I think perhaps that was his point, to link himself in the minds of the public to the most popular presidents of each respective party.
Kerry-Intelligent,coherent,self assured
Bush-Stuttered, stammered, looked like a bobble-head
That being said, I'm not crazy about either, but I know sure as heck who would have a better chance of getting us out of the hole we're in.
Dot
Okay, now I'll comment: I was surprised by the apparent underpreparedness shown by George W. Bush. And our President appeared to get really, really angry while Kerry spoke. Jim Lehrer being told by GW when he should start timing GW anew - erm...what happened to the debate protocols?
If you watched the debate, Kerry came off as the winner however, if you read the transcript, Bush wins hands down. Bush has no style and Kerry has no substance. I find it amazing that Kerry can make a statement about the War in Iraq and simultaneously convey that he is a Hawk *and come off as the anti-war candidate. It's remarkable really and quite scary.
A question that can be asked then, is, Is it possible to be against a certain war or wars, yet be pro-war if the criteria to engage in war are met? And if so, were those criteria met in Iraq II or other controversial wars?
And by the way, there's really no need to be totally anonymous here. This is an edu-blog, we are fairly civilized, and I've declared the "Comments" section a Safe Space (because I have control of the "delete" button if anyone gets really out of hand).
The motives behind this, and most recent wars the US has been involved in, are sketchy, and I don't think we should be there. I do believe war is acceptable for defensive purposes, but I sure don't buy the "best defense is a good offense" argument.
OK, being very naive here: If Kerry feels this is the wrong war at the wrong time, why wouldn't he just pull out? What are the supposed consequences?
The consequences, as I understand them, is that we'd leave Iraq in turmoil, unstable, and (breaking news) we'd be considered flakes.
Did I say "The Consequences...is"? Ech.
Need another espresso.
Alright, I did understand it. Wouldn't it be better to admit an error than perpetuate it?
You can see why I'd never make it in politics...
Post a Comment