Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Now THAT's some funny stuff! :-D

From what I've been reading, it's not going to be a "debate" as much as it's going to be a highly structured dumbed-down question and answer session. No views of the debater unless they're answering a question, no direct talk between the debaters, etc.

What a crock. But I still think you have an interesting point.

Posted by John Breen III at September 30, 2004 01:13 PM

9:51 and he's mentioned "my service" or some variation five times already.

Posted by at September 30, 2004 07:05 PM

Mrs. Switzer, who knows these things, tells me the "smacking" thing Bush is doing with his mouth is a dry drunk thing - he wants a drink.

Posted by Mr. Switzer at September 30, 2004 07:32 PM

Kerry won the debate, in my opinion. I'm not a Democrat or Republican, just for the record.

President Bush often seemed lost, and fumbled his responses frequently. When he couldn't find an answer to a question, he resorted to the same tired Republican rhetoric or tried to redirect by trying to explain something he doesn't understand (the international scene, for example). He did not adequately answer any of the questions, and he looked like an idiot. Like a rich, bratty frat boy who somehow found himself on an ivy league debate team, the President was embarrassing in his obvious ineptitude. While he correctly identified (as did Senator Kerry) that the greatest national security threat to the United States is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the president defended the so-called missile defense system, which is a $100 billion joke. Interestingly, terrorists will likely not launch a ballistic missile tipped with a WMD, but that's neither here nor there, I guess.

Senator Kerry came across as a leader by being articulate, charismatic, and intellectually global in scope. He often said something important: "We can do better." You're damn straight, and we ALWAYS need to hear that from a presidential candidate. But he also went up to bat for the soldier, the mom, the kids, and the rest of us, and provided several plans for key problems (like military staffing and international summits). He was adept at talking about international issues, which the president still doesn't get. I'm not a big fan of either candidate, but Kerry was stronger on the stage. The senator said something else that is important, relating to the president's assertion that dealing with North Korea is impossible: "Just because the president says it can't be done, doesn't mean it can't be done." Of course that's true, but many Americans appear to need reminding. The senator body slammed the president with ease, and I needed to see that. I may actually vote for Kerry (as opposed to Ralph Nader as a way of showing opposition).

Posted by Phil Smith at September 30, 2004 07:54 PM

Bush won the first half and Kerry the second. Bush had better closing remarks. Kerry looked worse visually.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 30, 2004 08:06 PM

Phil the left side of your skirt is showing.

Posted by Joe Schmoe at September 30, 2004 08:39 PM

Phil, will North Korea threaten to hit us with a missile? Or will they try to smuggle it out? There's far more than one threat in the world. And if China can't talk sense to North Korea (or chooses not to), then no one can. The discussion on North Korea was amazing.

Posted by Al at September 30, 2004 08:50 PM

Bush fumbled the debate. Kerry clearly did a better job in his presentation, if not his facts. Bush wasn't able to present his arguments well, even though he has the winning arguments. Which only goes to show that being able to talk a good game isn't what makes a good president.

Bushes strongest point was when he showed his bewilderment (ya just got to believe he is) at Kerry's willingness to turn over national security to the international debating societies... none of which have our best interests, to say the least.

Second was his understanding that bilateral talks with Korea would derail the multilateral that we've already engaged. If we are to avoid making Korea a parking lot, China is probably the key.

Posted by ken anthony at September 30, 2004 09:06 PM

Hmmm. . .

Did George W. Bush and Al both say that America must rely upon China to be secure from North Korean threats?

China? Why would they want to help us?

Posted by Bill White at September 30, 2004 09:06 PM

Watched it on VOA:
--"mixed messages" are the new "fuzzy math"
--"What about POLAND!!!" is the new Gore sigh.
--WTF was Bush's follow up on Iranian sanctions about?

Both missed oppotunities. But Kerry won the expectations game.

BTW: Is Allawi still credible if it turns out the Bush campaign was involved with writing his speech to Congress?

Posted by Duncan Young at September 30, 2004 09:21 PM

Kerry served in Vietnam. He gets to talk about it all he wants.

Did you serve in Vietnam? If not, then shut up.

Posted by Just me at September 30, 2004 09:25 PM

Well, Just Me, if Kerry wants to talk about Vietnam, he should run for elected office there.

You see, the war over there ended about 30 years ago and is not really relevant today.

Posted by Mike Puckett at September 30, 2004 10:06 PM

If China likes the idea of South Korea and Japan both being given, say, one ballistic missile submarine a piece, I'll be shocked. If it is just talks between the US and NK, with NK's track record of completely ignoring the last agreement, what's to agree on? "Give us stuff or we'll nuke somewhere" isn't a summit that has a happy outcome.

(The NK position is that they didn't violate the agreement until we did in 2001, but there's a whole pile of nuclear material that isn't accounted for by their 'agreed upon & monitored' nuclear reactor. Tough to confuse enriched uranium and plutonium.)

So, no. China isn't "on our side". Neither is NK. One of the two has more clout in the region. Wouldn't want to do this unilaterally after all.

Posted by Al at September 30, 2004 10:29 PM

China will never help defang North Korea because doing so is obviously not in their interests. It's great for them that NK is headed by a nutjob playing hide-the-nuke shell games with the U.S. It keeps the spotlight on Dear Leader's antics and allows the PRC to maneuver in the dark outside the spot. It makes the (always easily distracted) U.S. chattering class think we really need to be nice to China so they keep "helping" us with NK. And the U.S. taking a stand on NK nukes helps inoculate the PRC against concern over their nukes. (It's one of those choose-one scenarios, like the left complains about all the time with respect to Iraq and al Qaeda; if you put all your efforts into one, you lose track of the other. If the U.S. puts all its effort into eliminating NK's nuke program, it can't keep the focus on the PRC's. And, please note, it's the PRC and not NK who can launch orbital missions, and the PRC and not NK who has large enough global economic interests to come into serious conflict with the U.S.)

I'm astonished that anyone could even imagine the Chinese have any actual interest in "helping." They don't. Of course, the President knows this. One of the reasons he insists on multilateral talks is not so the Chinese can "help" on NK, but so that the U.S. can send messages to China during the process. For example, missile defense. If the U.S. were to build strategic missile defense and say it was in response to the PRC, there would be room for China to plausibly protest -- what, defence against peace-loving ultracivilized us? The cowboys! This would be admirable p.r. stuff internationally (which isn't so important) and in China domestically (which is -- don't forget the Chinese economy is hard pressed to support their enormous military expenditure). But that can't be done so easily when the public reason for strategic missile defense is defense against the whacko in Pyongyang, the insanity of whom, of course, the Chinese have been happy to play up. . .this is called being hoist by your own petard or rope-a-dope, something at which this President excels.

As for the naive person who suggests the PRC is "afraid" of NK with a nuke sub -- don't be silly. The Chinese are perfectly comfortable with deaths in the millions in pursuit of even a minor political goal. In pursuit of a major goal, such as the Great Leap Forward, farm collectivization or population control, the sky has historically been the limit. The idea that the Party would be so scared of the few hits a sub could get in before its host country was obliterated is laughable.

Posted by John Tzimisces at October 1, 2004 12:14 AM

The phantom commenter might need to stop working off the debate transcript sent out by the GOP. From a quick reading of the actual transcript, Kerry mentioned his service only three times (although I thought I heard four when listening so in all fairness I may have missed one). The words "service" and "my service" where never used by Kerry, although Bush compliments Kerry's service using that language several times. I did cringe every time Kerry referenced his war experience, but he did managed to restrain himself by using it only in passing, and tied it in to the overall argument he was making. Not beautiful, but not bad enough to overshadow the fact that Bush somehow managed to look weaker and more defensive than Kerry.

All told the much better drinking game was based on Bush's references to attacks on freedom, the transformational power of freedom, desire for freedom, and the many other varients giving depth to president's controversial stance that freedom is good.

I cant help but compare this to Amber Dempsey's stirring defense of the Bill of Rights--

Krusty: Amber, do you think the Bill of Rights is a good thing, or a baaaaad thing?
Amber: Um.... [thinking `hard']
Krusty: Take your time, dear.
Amber: Good thing. [flutters her eyelashes]
Judges: Awwwwww...

Bush might want to try fluttering his eyelashes next time.

Posted by Nathan at October 1, 2004 12:51 AM

In a more direct answer to Rand's question; Kerry used the word "Vietnam" only once (this was included as one of the three references to his war experience mentioned above).

Posted by Nathan at October 1, 2004 12:59 AM

He often said something important: "We can do better."

That's not saying something important. That's a shallow and meaningless platitude.

Posted by Derek L. at October 1, 2004 01:39 AM

As Hewitt has come up with exactly the same thoughts, I assume that the counter-memes has apparently arrived.
Time for some rebuttal.

"Global test" refers to the fact that if you are going to go preemptive, you better be sure that in the end you will A) win and B) that you will be able to convince the rest of the world the morning after. The test takes place not at the freaking U.N., but within the White House. Otherwise you risk squanding the credibility of the United States. See Iraq's WMD, Al Quadea links, blooming democracy etc. as examples.

And so far as nukes are concerned, you have to at least look at the balance between the deterent factor of new weapons and their encouragement factor they provide to rouge states. It isn't "nuclear freeze" thinking (which was about cementing MAD as a permenent, balanced state of affairs between two apparently perpetual systems) to suggest that a new round of nukes would be counterproductive in an environment where smaller actors are trying to punch above their weight. And as to the idea that the United States is some kind of perfect, responsible nation that can be trusted with nukes - what is this weird right wing knee-jerk paradox that big government will always f**k up big time except when going to war?
Again, see See Iraq's WMD, Al Quadea links, blooming democracy etc. as examples.

Posted by Duncan Young at October 1, 2004 06:31 AM

Well Kerry did hit some good points. I think George did a little to much tap dancing around some of the questions by repeating himself quite bit, i.e. wrong war wrong time quote over and over and the references that Kerry is a flip flopper. It was funny when Kerry said something like, "I know your campaign has a different expression for this but it seems that at one point your administration changed their position on...." But again there were many points were Kerry would say I'll do more of this and Bush would just come right back and say, ' but we did do more of that ourselves already than the previous administration'. However, it did seem that the majority of the questions were lopsided against Bush and easy pitches for Kerry. Kerry never really did come right out and say what he would do to end the war. All he could really say was that its difficult and nothing is gauranteed....exactly.

My girlfriend is in nursing school and her instructor just came back from iraq working in the military hospitals over there. She went on and one one day in class talking about how much she was amazed by the determination and the dedication of the troops over there. One kid she worked on had his hand hanging on by a few strands of sinuous tissue and all he could talk about was getting better and going back to work. I do believe the troops what a determined and dedicated leader as well and Bush is jumping on that perception very well.

Posted by Josh "Hefty" Reiter at October 1, 2004 06:38 AM

Strong? Decisive? Resolute?

Then why isn't that thug Sadr in custody?

Posted by Bill White at October 1, 2004 06:52 AM

Then why isn't that thug Sadr in custody?

Ummm...because the Iraqi government thought it best not to take him into custody at this time? Or would you want us to "go it alone," and "act unilaterally"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 1, 2004 06:58 AM

That may be what Kerry meant (before he didn't mean it), but his rhetoric on this subject on the campaign trail (and in his Senate career), in which he seems to worship the UN and France, will make this a very effective transcript soundbite for the Republicans for the next few weeks.

And Kerry was a leader in the nuclear freeze movement in the 1980s. There's nothing to indicate that his mindset, that the problem is American weapons, has changed.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 1, 2004 07:17 AM

I found a few points interesting. I'm no Rhodes scholar, so bear with me.

First, Kerry's resistance to answering about his "plan" for Iraq. I found it close to laughable that he ducked the question every time it came up.

However, Bush missed the HUGE softball that Kerry lobbed (and I'm not sure I've heard it discussed anywhere else, either). Part of Kerry's objection to Iraq is that 9/10's of our troops are either in Iraq, on their way home from Iraq, on their way to Iraq, or training to go to Iraq. That's a far cry from 9/10's of our troops actually being IN Iraq, IMHO. Also, his plan to help out in Africa and to help our troops in Iraq is to create two active duty divisions, in addition to the current 10 divisions that we have. Bush could easily have shot back with "How can you propose to create two additional active duty divisions while you complain about my plans to increase recruiting activities?" or something like that. He missed the opportunity.

I also think that Bush did a pretty good job of objecting to the loaded question about his opinion of Kerry's character. He turned it around by taking the high road (including his ribbing Kerry about going to Yale), which I thought was a good tactic on his part.

Kerry knows how to debate, that's pretty clear. Bush, not so good at it. Substance is quite another thing entirely.

Posted by John Breen III at October 1, 2004 07:19 AM

Ummm...because the Iraqi government thought it best not to take him into custody at this time? Or would you want us to "go it alone," and "act unilaterally"?

Since when does the national security of the United States depend on the whims of foreign leaders?

Besides, the White House wrote Allawi's speech to Congress. Why not tell Allawi to tell the Marines to capture Sadr?

Posted by Bill White at October 1, 2004 08:03 AM

Since when does the national security of the United States depend on the whims of foreign leaders?

When it's deemed in our national interest to follow the advice of someone more familiar than us with the country in which we're operating.

Is it your (illogical) contention that just because we shouldn't let our national interest be dictated by foreign leaders, that we should therefore automatically oppose any advice of foreign leaders? If not, then I fail to see your point.

Besides, the White House wrote Allawi's speech to Congress.

So some say.

So? Even if true, did someone force him to use it?

Why not tell Allawi to tell the Marines to capture Sadr?

I know this won't fit your Dem playbook, Bill, but maybe because he's not (contra renowned diplomat Joe Lockhart) our "puppet"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 1, 2004 08:15 AM

"The phantom commenter might need to stop working off the debate transcript sent out by the GOP. From a quick reading of the actual transcript, Kerry mentioned his service only three times (although I thought I heard four when listening so in all fairness I may have missed one)."

From a quick (and therefore possibly incomplete) review of the transcript on CNN:

"I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions when you don't know what's around the corner."

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

"I understand what the president is talking about, because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war."

"I defended this country as a young man at war, and I will defend it as president of the United States."

Posted by The Phantom Commenter at October 1, 2004 08:23 AM

..in which he seems to worship the UN and France, will make this a very effective transcript soundbite for the Republicans for the next few weeks.

But there you have Bush going on and on about the vital need to confront North Korea with a multilateral alliance led by that long time U.S. ally ...China!

I still think you are caricaturing the freeze movement. Although some, notably L. S. Wittner, have argued that the freeze played a central role in the end of the cold war, much of the credit should go to Reagan's brinkmanship. But the whole point of the freeze was that it was not unilateral, not specifically focused against American weapons - it could only work with Soviet participation. Indeed, the freeze was an admission that actually getting rid of weapons was impossible after the Democratic Senate rejected SALT-II.

The problem was nuclear weapons themselves - next to useless militarily, and very expensive. Their use would guarantee unprecedented genocide. Their only function, terror. And thousands of them were already in existence. So to ask, why build more more? was a rational question. (Of course, it might be argued that one of Reagan's strengths was that he was not a rational man).

(And I still think that nuclear weapons are a friging blight. Think of where the nuclear power industry might be now if it wasn't for the tangental association with WMD.)

Posted by Duncan Young at October 1, 2004 08:32 AM

I'm sorry Rand, but your man does not look very presidential in these photos of the debate, does he ?

=> http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=247788

Seriously though, Pepe Escobar at Asia Times dot com got it about right. In his analysis: "The Roving Eye; That split screen", he disects the hollowness of dubya's performance last night.

=> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FJ02Aa01.html

Two excerpts:
__________________________________________________

(1)
According to another rule, "There will be no TV cutaways to any candidate who is not responding to a question while another candidate is answering a question." In true Monty Python fashion ("Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"), nobody was expecting the split screen. But doing without it would have made very boring TV. So Fox News, generating the images and cutaway shots, perhaps inadvertently delivered to the world The Smirking Robot: the president of the United States lip-smacking, smirking, blinking, eye-rolling, performing anguished jazz solos of facial contortions, and looking genuinely angry. His voice was petulant. He barely remembered his own record. He said absolutely nothing new. And he could barely disguise his rage: How could anyone even dream of questioning and holding him to account for his foreign-policy choices - in the "war on terra" and in Iraq? After all, "I just know how this world works."

(2)
Little did Fox News, or the other networks that used it, know the split screen is the metaphor of this election. The Bush you see on-screen - the "likable" tough guy - is not the Bush you see off-screen - a very different figure - as much as the Bush "war on terra" has nothing to do with the tragic realities on the ground. But there's the rub: do Americans prefer to deal with a man who "knows how the world works" because God told him so, or do they want a thinking man? Do they want to live in reality, or seek refuge in a reality show?

Posted by Canute at October 1, 2004 08:39 AM

If you think that a split screen is going to get Kerry, elected, dream on, Canute. The mistake you folks make is in thinking that most people share your raging antipathy to the president. Sorry, but they don't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 1, 2004 08:45 AM

Canute,
Much as I think the Bush adminstration is the engaging in the worse stratigic decisions since Paris ran off with Helen, I was crappy when they did it to Gore, it's crappy when they do it to Bush.

His record, and his clearly stated worldview, are enough by themselves.

Posted by Duncan Young at October 1, 2004 09:07 AM

..it was crappy when they did it to Gore..

^#$^@@ dial-up!!

Posted by Duncan Young at October 1, 2004 09:09 AM

I know this won't fit your Dem playbook, Bill, but maybe because he's not (contra renowned diplomat Joe Lockhart) our "puppet"?

Nah he is not "our puppet"

But he does bow to Sistani.

We didn't bag Sadr because Sistani said "Knock it off" and BOTH Allawi and Sadr answered "Yes, sir!"

= = =

So, big guy, if we decided not to capture Sadr why is Najaf in ruins? We destroy an Islamic holy city fighting Sadr and THEN we let him go, to walk out free, with his weapons.

Yup. Strong. Decisive. Resolute.

Posted by Bill White at October 1, 2004 09:24 AM

We "destroyed" Najaf? It is "in ruins"?

Who knew?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 1, 2004 09:28 AM

When it's deemed in our national interest to follow the advice of someone more familiar than us with the country in which we're operating.

Drats! I almost missed how easy this one is. ;-)

How do you spell Chalabi?

"Listen up you neo-cons, those Iraqis will just love that blue & white flag. Yup you can trust your good Uncle Chalabi on that one. . ."

Posted by Bill White at October 1, 2004 09:29 AM

Bill, most of Najaf is quite intact.

Falluja might not be able to make that claim if we continue our airstrikes.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 1, 2004 09:39 AM

So, Bill, you're saying that we should have ignored Allawi? We shouldn't have taken his wishes into consideration?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 1, 2004 09:59 AM

No Rand, I don't think Kerry will get elected by the split screen showing dubya's smirks, but if the majority of the undecided voters decide that they're not buying the hollowness of dubya's retoric

Duncan, what's funny here, is the fact that the networks didn't obey the detailed rules set forth by the two campaigns. On that note, I believe that Pepe Escobar wrote a point on assessment.

However, what's wrong with showing debatants -- when they are not speaking -- during political debates? In my country, the networks do it all the time. I realize though, that there's a difference here, and that is; there's usually only two candidates for political office in the US, whereas during political debates on TV during our election season, we do have quite a few debatants representing the different political parties, so it's easier to "blend in"

Also, one shoud note that political debates are partly theater. And in a theater, it's not only what you say and how you say it that counts, but also body language and "presence".

Posted by Canute at October 1, 2004 10:07 AM

These debates are mostly theatre, and it's quite misleading to even call them debates, given all of the dumb rules they have. I, frankly, could do without them, but they seem to have become a staple of campaign season.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 1, 2004 10:11 AM

So Rand, would you approve of presidential debates with a more "freewheeling" approach?

Posted by Canute at October 1, 2004 10:18 AM

Sure, but it doesn't matter what I approve of. These things are always negotiated between the campaigns.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 1, 2004 10:29 AM

However, Bush missed the HUGE softball that Kerry lobbed (and I'm not sure I've heard it discussed anywhere else, either). Part of Kerry's objection to Iraq is that 9/10's of our troops are either in Iraq, on their way home from Iraq, on their way to Iraq, or training to go to Iraq.

That's pretty much standard for any operation that involves a rotating series of forces. The rule of thumb for the Navy is that it takes three hulls to keep a single hull on station. (One on station, one in training or transit, one undergoing maintenance.)

That's a far cry from 9/10's of our troops actually being IN Iraq, IMHO.

That's 9/10's committed to Iraq, which is the militarys normal way of measuring such things. (A deployment, or redeployment, is a process with a certain amount of inertia and is not easily or without cost redirected.)

Posted by Derek L. at October 1, 2004 11:55 AM

Sure, but it doesn't matter what I approve of. These things are always negotiated between the campaigns.

If I had my way, they would both play in a televised poker game with about 12 camera angles. Like they do on ESPN-2.

If Kerry wilts under the pressure, okay I vote Bush. And vice-versa.

Lets see who is calm, cool and collected and makes wise decisions under pressure.

Posted by Bill White at October 1, 2004 01:13 PM

Lets see who is calm, cool and collected and makes wise decisions under pressure. [during a debate]

A method guaranteed to produce a leader absolutely unsuited for the job. A President very rarely (read essentially never in the history of the United States to date) has to make an immediate decision in the way that a candidate has to in a debate. Your method produces candidates who a) fire quickly from a preplanned menu, and wilt when something not in the script appears, or b) constantly fires from the hip with no forethought or reflection.

Neither type strikes me as a viable leader.

Posted by Derek L. at October 1, 2004 01:55 PM

Your method produces candidates who a) fire quickly from a preplanned menu, and wilt when something not in the script appears, or b) constantly fires from the hip with no forethought or reflection.

Damn. That sounds familiar. Bush was relentlessly on message for 30 minutes of the debate...

Posted by Duncan Young at October 1, 2004 08:34 PM

Post a comment