I originally posted this as a comment on my friend Ed's blog, but I figured I'd immortalize it here.
Kerry is a fantastic speaker. I watched one of his speeches on television, and kept finding myself nodding and thinking, "Wow, this is great!"
It was only later, after it was over, that I started thinking about what he actually said. And the truth was--to me, at least--that what he was saying made no sense.
It was all idealism, untested, hypothetical situations about how he would make America better for minorities. A lot of it, on later reckoning, didn't compute at all.
It was just that he spoke so well.
George Bush can't speak to save his life. He's better in one-on-one situations, where he can be casual and random, but even then he slips up. A lot of what he says is rhetoric, too, black and white rhetoric about how we must stop the enemy. He took this rhetoric way too far when he went after gay marriage.
I have never thought, "Yay, Bush!" I have thought it was better to have Bush in there than Gore. And I think it will be better to have Bush in there than Kerry, too.
The truth is that I haven't been excited about a candidate since the 1996 Republican preliminaries, when Alan Keyes caught my attention. (I don't even know if I agree with him now, but back then I thought he was amazing. Steadfast, opinionated, and a fabulous orator.)
But I do think that Bush has a proven track record of not backing down, even when it looks like he's wrong...and Kerry has a proven track record of backing off or completely changing his mind based on any scrutiny, from within or from without. That is a dangerous characteristic for a President. Do we really want someone in office who can be so easily swayed?
Those are my opinions. I suggest ignoring the protestors, heck, ignore all the members of the political parties except the candidates. Listen to what they have to say and think about what they stand for and how they've behaved in the past.
Then pick the lesser of two evils.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is the whole problem with politics in America (I believe also, a problem inherent with a two-party system).
It creates uninteresting candidates and forces them, if they want ANY chance of winning, to pander to moderates.
You mentioned Kerry's waffles--the entire world has. Bush has waffled more than a few times himself (I found a compendium of Bush waffles the other day, but lost the link, sorry).
Is this a weakness in candidates, or a weakness in system?
I watched a fantastic movie last night, called the Candidate. It's got Robert Redford looking hotter than ever, with muttonchops you just want to smother in applesauce and eat right off his face. Obviously it was made in the seventies, but it speaks so clearly of what is happening this election cycle it was spooky, like fate--I'd forgotten it was in my Netflix queue.
It's about an idealistic young lawyer who gets roped into fighting an impossibly popular incumbent for senator of California. Long story short, after the primaries he's a long shot, but begins making up ground fast, not because his social-democrat platform is reaching disenfranchised people, but because his campaign managers are fantastic at muddying his views into the kind of soundbyte politics that reach moderates and even Republicans.
It's wonderful at chronicling that shift toward the center that all candidates (those that want to really win anyway) HAVE to do to succeed in a two party system.
Fascinating. Anyway, I wanted to blog about it, and you may have just given me my angle, thanks.
And thanks as well for your kind words. The greatest gift blogging has given me so far is access to thoughtful people not content to languish in partisan zealotry--though I think I disagree about who would be a better president. ;)
You have a great blog.
Thanks for coming over and commenting! I'm glad you've enjoyed my blog so far, although you'll quickly notice that I'm more of a gut-reaction-emotional poster than a let's-think-it-all-through-logically poster. I feel much of the time that my blog lacks sufficient substance to maintain an audience, but I hardly ever am "in the mood" to write something that could be considered "hard-hitting journalism".
In any case, thank you for your comment.
I think I agree about the two-party system. Back in 2000, I voted for Harry Browne, and I was secretly hoping for a huge upset that would put him in office and make a laughingstock of the two-party system. Of course, that didn't happen, though Browne made a decent showing...at least compared to some of the other candidates that no one's heard of.
As far as why Bush is (marginally) better than Kerry...I'm just afraid Kerry will let the terrorists have their way, that he'll negotiate with them. Ultimately, that would legitimize terrorism as a means to an end, and we'd start seeing a hell of a lot more of it.
I hope you're not inferring that anything I write can be considered "hard-hitting journalism" lol.
I think your concerns about Kerry are valid and frankly, they seem to be shared by a large number of people. In general, the only thing polls (for what they're worth) have shown people trust Bush to do well is fight the war on terror. Still, that one thing is at the forefront of peoples minds and it may be enough to get him elected.
I won't try to persuade you otherwise, because I'm unsure of kerry's ability in that respect as well, and because I'm really bad at that particular art. Besides, Georgia going to Bush is pretty much a foregone conclusion anyway ;)
Post a Comment