The Presidential Showdown
Well, I was extremely surprised by the disparity between the two candidates in their debating skills. I knew that public speaking (or speaking in general) was not President Bush's strong point, but I did not expect him to be as ill-prepared as he was. I also expected John Kerry to be well-spoken and prepared, but I was surprised by his calm, commanding, and likeable presence. He really seemed to take control of the debate and the room, and he certainly came across as very "presidential." (Much more so than the current president, in my opinion.)I was only able to catch the last hour of the debate live, so I will focus my comments on that segment until I am able to watch the first part on video.
I thought that the questions asked regarding North Korea were very appropriate and relevant, but I did not think that Bush made much of a claim to back up his choice of actions on this matter. It seemed that the only justification that he had for not opening bilateral talks with North Korea moderated by other nations was a broad villification of Kim Chong-il as some schoolyard bully just rubbing his hands together and waiting for the impending doom that he can create once the US agrees to bilateral communication. Bush's tagline in response to questions on North Korea was always "That's just what Kim Chong-il wants." No further justification of why that might not be something America and the world would want as well.
Kerry advocated opening talks with North Korea and enlisting support from other nations in resolving this conflict. No real substantive rebuttal from Bush.
I thought it was interesting to read an official comment from the North Korean government in a news article this week: "The US is the world’s worst violator of human rights as it is killing innocent civilians, including children, everyday after illegally igniting a war against Iraq,” said a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman yesterday.
Which leads me to the ever-present issue of the Iraq war. I think Kerry finally did a good job of articulating his stand on the war. His claim was that a good leader is flexible and always learning. Good policy decisions are iterative and recursive and always seeking the newest and best information. Thus, a president ought to be willing to adjust policies and specific viewpoints as new information is made available. Admit former misconceptions and mistakes and redraw your plan as necesary. President Bush's claim, conversely, was that a good leader makes a concrete decision that will never be amended or redirected no matter what.
After all, he did say that if we fail to elect him as our strong and resolute (if bull-headed) leader, the world will "drift toward chaos." How can we argue with that.
And was anyone else infuriated by the fact that whenever Bush didn't know what to say (which was often) he simply threw in some fear tactic line to remind us that terrorists are closing in on us from all sides? And when he was asked his thoughts on Russia and President Putin (his pronunciation of Vladimir was hilarious) that he admitted briefly the human rights violations and ethical misdeeds of the Russian leader but then threw in a "But he's a great ally in the war on terrorism" and felt very satisfied with this rationale for supporting the Russian government?
I was very pleased to hear Kerry assert that nuclear proliferation was his number one concern for the future. I was also somewhat pleased to hear Bush say the same, although I don't think that backing out of international agreements on nonproliferation is a good way to spearhead global progress on nonproliferation.
I could go on and on and may do so in another entry, but I will end this one here. Thanks for humoring me, and I welcome any comments to my obviously biased commentary.
posted by Anonymous @ 9:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home