Red vs. Blue, political style
Sep. 30th, 2004 09:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
azuriteWell, the first Presidential debate of the 2004 election season has come to a close. As a voter, I'm going to share my two cents... feel free to comment. ^_^
The whole reason why I said "Red vs. Blue" is because I noticed their ties. I wonder if that was planned or not. But Kerry had on a red tie-- red being the color of aggression, passion, loyalty, love, blood, and a bold, fiery color. Bush had on a bright blue tie-- blue is the color of calm, passivity, peace, dreams, and is the color of both water and to some, ice. It's a laid-back sort of color, for a self-proclaimed "calm" guy.
Initially, I liked how the two of them shook hands with one another, and patted each other on the back. It's nice to know that even though Kerry is out for Bush's job (then again, that's the position you put yourself in with politics...), the two of them can seem genial with one another. Above all else, I noticed that they weren't going at each other's throats, playing "dirty" like the stereotypical politician is "supposed" to, and that they agreed on a great deal.
But I honestly think that Kerry "won" this debate. Grandpa commented that having Jim Lehrer as a moderator is sort of a new innovation; previous debates didn't have moderators, and candidates just went at each other, interrupting-- there were no green, yellow, and red lights. But I definitely think it helped keep things running smoothly. I noticed that out of the many questions and rebuttals posed, Kerry never had the flashing red light (out of time). He always finished right on the marker, leaving on a good point, instead of hanging. Several times, Bush seemed to get off topic, and I wondered why he was dodging the question.
I don't doubt that Bush loves his nation, and I do give him a great deal of credit for making America more secure. But on the flip side, what Kerry brought up several times is that Bush lacks solidarity. He can't seem to stick to his guns when it comes to the promises he's made, and he has a bad habit of not reinforcing his values in a manner that doesn't make him sound horrendously repetitive and obvious. The long pauses and facial expressions he made (I must note, the split screen thing was NOT supposed to happen, but neither of the candidates actually signed the agreement, so... stations did it anyway) weakened him as a speaker. However, as the people in Hardball after the debates commented, that means more of America might relate to Bush, feeling that he comes from their background, that he can relate to them.
I don't see it. He's rich, he's a politician through and through, and he's a former president's son! I don't relate to him at all. And while I personally don't think military history is an important part of how someone can lead a country in the next four years, I have closer ties to Kerry, who has actually served (there's no question about that) and knows what it's like to be in the military, to have friends in the military, and to lose people you love to war.
I'm a concerned voter, but it seems as though the nation doesn't remember I exist. Instead of trying to get young people to vote more (Rock the Vote, Votergasm, and other such organizations aside; I'm talking about major candidates addressing teenage and young adult voters as a political body), we're just an ignored body. To an extent-- Bush has teenage daughters, as does Kerry; Kerry knows that there are VERY young soldiers (friends of mine, too!) out there!
Today's debate was on Homeland Security and similar issues; everything from Kim Jong Il and nuclear proliferation to what the candidates would do (or continue to do, in Bush's case) for the country. Frankly I think Kerry is just the better public speaker; he seems to have a more credible, trustworthy air about him. I noticed how much Bush blinked, how much he drank water, how he leaned on the podium and shifted... Kerry, meanwhile, whenever he wasn't speaking, seemed to have a neutral facial expression and he always took notes; he stood straight and didn't shift his legs or lean, and he also gestured when he spoke so that he wouldn't resort to holding his arms or playing with his fingers.
Focusing on specific issues, I agree with Kerry on some, with Bush on others (typically the same issues Kerry and Bush are NOT divided on), and with neither of them on others. I think it's incredibly important to establish America's credibility and honesty around the world; I think it's equally important to acknowledge the help of other nations, but also their ideas that may be better than ours. Yes, we are the United States of America and a world superpower, but we're also billions of dollars (maybe trillions?) in debt, and right now we don't have a very good international face. It's a sad day indeed when America, the so-called melting pot of the world, is classified into one label, and stereotyped into one sort of "bad American" that everyone can love to hate.
Are bilateral talks with North Korea possible? I'd like to hope so. I think it's wrong to assume what Kim Jong Il "wants" and "expects" from us, regardless of whether he has nuclear power (and I don't doubt that he has SOMETHING) or not. I believe that America is a diverse country that has been through a lot, and we have spread ourselves a little too thin; that's why September 11th happened in the first place, and it's why we "retaliated" in such a disorganized fashion. To me "War on Terror" sounds a bit ridiculous; how can you declare war on a concept or an idea, rather than a nation or a person?
I'd also like to point out that even Presidents make mistakes. Bush has made some pretty glaring ones, but he's a pretty decent politician. Still, I'm a Democrat, and I have a greater connection to Kerry and Edwards. I was surprised to see at the post-debate events, several "Republicans against Bush." I wasn't aware such people existed! I figured if you were part of one party, you voted for that candidate. Not necessarily all of the Republican-approved propositions and measures, but when it comes down to a choice between Bush and Kerry, if you're of one party, aren't you "supposed" (and I put that in quotes for a reason) to vote for that person? *shrugs*
I’d like to see us turn into a peaceful nation once more, where I don’t have to worry about being drafted or hearing about my friends dying in Iraq and Kuwait. I’d like to hear about soldiers returning to their real home after extended tours of duties in places where the U.S. has no real need for their presence. Why do we still have troops in Japan? Korea I can understand, but Japan? Military presence in a place that’s on its feet and trying to become a nation again isn’t helping. Maybe those soldiers can come home-- or help out the millions of people dying in Sudan!
And what about the Kyoto Treaty? Bush talks about summits and meetings, about acknowledging other nations’ contributions... he said that he didn’t want to include the U.S. in the International Criminal Court. Frankly, I don’t know much about that, but I’d rather he addressed why the U.S., one of the most powerful and abusive (when it comes to power, money, connections, and environmental things) isn’t part of the accord to try and cut back on harmful production and use of things that lend to global warming!? Most other nations need a strong, large body to follow before they’ll join the Kyoto Accord, and the U.S. backing out of it shows we have no spine. Bush claimed we didn’t have the money for it... I WONDER WHY!?
Kerry’s right; we are spread too thin. But I have much more to learn about him AND Bush in the coming debates.
Out of 197,096 responses on MSNBC.com, 71% of them agree in saying that Kerry won the debate. (8:16pm)
In other news, it's me vs. Scott-- the SF Giants are trouncing the San Diego Padres! HEHEHE! GOOOOO GIANTS!
The whole reason why I said "Red vs. Blue" is because I noticed their ties. I wonder if that was planned or not. But Kerry had on a red tie-- red being the color of aggression, passion, loyalty, love, blood, and a bold, fiery color. Bush had on a bright blue tie-- blue is the color of calm, passivity, peace, dreams, and is the color of both water and to some, ice. It's a laid-back sort of color, for a self-proclaimed "calm" guy.
Initially, I liked how the two of them shook hands with one another, and patted each other on the back. It's nice to know that even though Kerry is out for Bush's job (then again, that's the position you put yourself in with politics...), the two of them can seem genial with one another. Above all else, I noticed that they weren't going at each other's throats, playing "dirty" like the stereotypical politician is "supposed" to, and that they agreed on a great deal.
But I honestly think that Kerry "won" this debate. Grandpa commented that having Jim Lehrer as a moderator is sort of a new innovation; previous debates didn't have moderators, and candidates just went at each other, interrupting-- there were no green, yellow, and red lights. But I definitely think it helped keep things running smoothly. I noticed that out of the many questions and rebuttals posed, Kerry never had the flashing red light (out of time). He always finished right on the marker, leaving on a good point, instead of hanging. Several times, Bush seemed to get off topic, and I wondered why he was dodging the question.
I don't doubt that Bush loves his nation, and I do give him a great deal of credit for making America more secure. But on the flip side, what Kerry brought up several times is that Bush lacks solidarity. He can't seem to stick to his guns when it comes to the promises he's made, and he has a bad habit of not reinforcing his values in a manner that doesn't make him sound horrendously repetitive and obvious. The long pauses and facial expressions he made (I must note, the split screen thing was NOT supposed to happen, but neither of the candidates actually signed the agreement, so... stations did it anyway) weakened him as a speaker. However, as the people in Hardball after the debates commented, that means more of America might relate to Bush, feeling that he comes from their background, that he can relate to them.
I don't see it. He's rich, he's a politician through and through, and he's a former president's son! I don't relate to him at all. And while I personally don't think military history is an important part of how someone can lead a country in the next four years, I have closer ties to Kerry, who has actually served (there's no question about that) and knows what it's like to be in the military, to have friends in the military, and to lose people you love to war.
I'm a concerned voter, but it seems as though the nation doesn't remember I exist. Instead of trying to get young people to vote more (Rock the Vote, Votergasm, and other such organizations aside; I'm talking about major candidates addressing teenage and young adult voters as a political body), we're just an ignored body. To an extent-- Bush has teenage daughters, as does Kerry; Kerry knows that there are VERY young soldiers (friends of mine, too!) out there!
Today's debate was on Homeland Security and similar issues; everything from Kim Jong Il and nuclear proliferation to what the candidates would do (or continue to do, in Bush's case) for the country. Frankly I think Kerry is just the better public speaker; he seems to have a more credible, trustworthy air about him. I noticed how much Bush blinked, how much he drank water, how he leaned on the podium and shifted... Kerry, meanwhile, whenever he wasn't speaking, seemed to have a neutral facial expression and he always took notes; he stood straight and didn't shift his legs or lean, and he also gestured when he spoke so that he wouldn't resort to holding his arms or playing with his fingers.
Focusing on specific issues, I agree with Kerry on some, with Bush on others (typically the same issues Kerry and Bush are NOT divided on), and with neither of them on others. I think it's incredibly important to establish America's credibility and honesty around the world; I think it's equally important to acknowledge the help of other nations, but also their ideas that may be better than ours. Yes, we are the United States of America and a world superpower, but we're also billions of dollars (maybe trillions?) in debt, and right now we don't have a very good international face. It's a sad day indeed when America, the so-called melting pot of the world, is classified into one label, and stereotyped into one sort of "bad American" that everyone can love to hate.
Are bilateral talks with North Korea possible? I'd like to hope so. I think it's wrong to assume what Kim Jong Il "wants" and "expects" from us, regardless of whether he has nuclear power (and I don't doubt that he has SOMETHING) or not. I believe that America is a diverse country that has been through a lot, and we have spread ourselves a little too thin; that's why September 11th happened in the first place, and it's why we "retaliated" in such a disorganized fashion. To me "War on Terror" sounds a bit ridiculous; how can you declare war on a concept or an idea, rather than a nation or a person?
I'd also like to point out that even Presidents make mistakes. Bush has made some pretty glaring ones, but he's a pretty decent politician. Still, I'm a Democrat, and I have a greater connection to Kerry and Edwards. I was surprised to see at the post-debate events, several "Republicans against Bush." I wasn't aware such people existed! I figured if you were part of one party, you voted for that candidate. Not necessarily all of the Republican-approved propositions and measures, but when it comes down to a choice between Bush and Kerry, if you're of one party, aren't you "supposed" (and I put that in quotes for a reason) to vote for that person? *shrugs*
I’d like to see us turn into a peaceful nation once more, where I don’t have to worry about being drafted or hearing about my friends dying in Iraq and Kuwait. I’d like to hear about soldiers returning to their real home after extended tours of duties in places where the U.S. has no real need for their presence. Why do we still have troops in Japan? Korea I can understand, but Japan? Military presence in a place that’s on its feet and trying to become a nation again isn’t helping. Maybe those soldiers can come home-- or help out the millions of people dying in Sudan!
And what about the Kyoto Treaty? Bush talks about summits and meetings, about acknowledging other nations’ contributions... he said that he didn’t want to include the U.S. in the International Criminal Court. Frankly, I don’t know much about that, but I’d rather he addressed why the U.S., one of the most powerful and abusive (when it comes to power, money, connections, and environmental things) isn’t part of the accord to try and cut back on harmful production and use of things that lend to global warming!? Most other nations need a strong, large body to follow before they’ll join the Kyoto Accord, and the U.S. backing out of it shows we have no spine. Bush claimed we didn’t have the money for it... I WONDER WHY!?
Kerry’s right; we are spread too thin. But I have much more to learn about him AND Bush in the coming debates.
Out of 197,096 responses on MSNBC.com, 71% of them agree in saying that Kerry won the debate. (8:16pm)
In other news, it's me vs. Scott-- the SF Giants are trouncing the San Diego Padres! HEHEHE! GOOOOO GIANTS!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 05:08 am (UTC)I didn’t get to see the whole deal, but I'd have given the win to Kerry in this debate. These kinds of talks really have almost nothing to do with the issues. The candidates and the decided voters will lob loaded quotes and figures back and forth at each other and debate items, but the neutrals will make their decisions based almost entirely on appearance. Kerry simply looked better. Despite his heavy makeup (to cover up the awful fake tan), Kerry seemed more calm, collected, and on top of his game. Bush, in stark contrast, appeared to fumble and flounder about on his podium. He's just a poor public speaker.
As far as the issues, well I don't really want to take up too much space here, so I'll just post it in my own journal.
In my opinion, Kerry won the public appearance portion, but Bush won the facts war. In most cases, Bush would give a pretty clear answer (even if it took a while to get it out), where Kerry would give catchphrases and opinions.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-01 09:21 pm (UTC)And Kerry, I don't know, it could be because I'm from a smaller town and that's why I relate more to Bush, but anyway, to my point-- Kerry said in the debate that the troops didn't have enough armor and supplies and yet he was against sending more funds to the war and soliders.
X__X It wasn't as bad as normal regarding personal attacks?? Do I want to see what it was like in the past?
mero, you make a good point!
Date: 2004-10-02 03:25 am (UTC)Bush or Kerry?
Date: 2004-10-03 09:23 am (UTC)Re: Bush or Kerry?
Date: 2004-10-04 05:01 am (UTC)Anyway, I should probably re-watch the debate to determine whether or not I can agree with your analysis that Kerry kept changing stances; he did at least acknowledge past mistakes, which, as I said before, is more than Bush has done. And as for attacking Bush, sorry, but what do you expect out of a campaign like this? Kerry's after Bush's job-- he's not going to praise every move that Bush has made. He has agreed with the President on many things, and kept a relatively calm demeanor, to which point I would say he doesn't ever seem like he's ATTACKING or SMEARING anybody or anything. So I commend Kerry for that. Bush has his high points, but I just can't agree with what he's done and what he plans to do with this country.