Not So Deep Thought

So this is probably going to be my director's chair for stupid commercial/movie ideas and a soapbox attacking our current government administration and how it's all screwed up. Enjoy!

Warning: All material hereafter is probably crap.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

So pathetic...

I came across a website a few weeks ago that had questions that the presidential candidates would answer from younger voters. The questions were very relevant for the time, and poked at issues that have not been convered in the national debates. I read the questions, very exicted to see the responses from the candidates. However, what we got is the same BS slinging crap that we've heard during the national debates.

Also, I don't go into analyzing Nader's responses because:
1. Who cares what Nader has to say! Hahah, just kidding. It's very important to pay attention to third party statements about reform. I'm not sure why, maybe they'll have some good ideas, but I don't know.. I haven't read his responses yet.
2. He has no change of winning.

I will at some point go into more depth regarding all of this, adding in comments about Nader's responses as well as a point system (woohoo!). This is just an initial rundown. (Update 10/14/04)

The questions and reponses

I'll go through them one by one offering some commentary. Please note for anybody reading, I am not analyzing the candidates answer, merely their ability to answer the question at hand.


Kerry's response
: Short, to the point. Doesn't answer the question. Notice how it says "and if not, what will you do to change the law?". Kerry says he thinks "the death penalty should only be used for terrorists" but never says HOW he will change the law, just that he will adhere to it. A very short and pointless reponse to a fairly valid question.

Bush's response
: Wow, classic Bush. He pussy-footed around the question, saying how he supports capital punishment when it's "fair and guilt is certain", but like Kerry, he never really answer the question. Like Kerry he never says if executing a minor is OK, which was the question.


Bush's Response
: Nice, at the very end he got the 'no new taxes' part in there. However, he answered the question saying he's in favor of reforms to the current system so it can adapt to the 21st century. Notice though how he just says 'in favor' and never says he'll actually change anything. Great political blow-speech. UPDATE: Looking back at the question and response it appears that Bush does answer the question.

Kerry's Respone
: Meh, sounds like an attack on the administration. "We would have move money if Bush hadn't squandered it" sort of thing. He does say he wants some reform, but the answer it too short to go into detail about the changes.

First off, I want to say, I think this question is of an extreme importance. Why were we attacked on 9/11?? Because someone hated us. So how do we stop the attacks? Well, there is the 'nieve' approach (in the eyes of some Americans) that say you try to get them to stop hating you. There is the other approach that says you go out and kill everybody that hates you. Personally, I'd rather see people stop hating us. So this question is very important, it's basically a "how do you plan to get people to like us again" question.

Bush's Response
: There is a very subtle point to Bush's response. I'll let you come to your own conclussions but he still fails to answer the second part of the question, which is how to rebuild the relationships around the world he so subtly tore down during the invasion of Iraq. Once again, didn't answer the question.

Kerry's Response
: Hmm, right away.. nice touch... everybody loved Teddy, he did a great job. Good way to incorporate him into the response. He does seem to understand the point of the question though. For Kerry this is a tough subject. The Republicans have raked him over the coals for saying he wants a 'global test' and wants the backing of other countries, leading people to believe that he wouldn't protect America when neccessary. Kerry seems to touch on each subject possible, which is good. First he mentions historical statements from highly regarded past leaders (Roosevelt) then he goes on to say how Bush's administration has 'bullied' and that "they have undermined the legacy of generations of American leadership. And that is what we must restore." He goes on to further state how he will fight terrorism and build alliances. Much more rounded and thorough answer then Bush's.

This question is mostly irrelevant since it's pretty clear there will be no draft... the bill was recently shot down some incredible amount... so no comments here.

This is one of my favorite questions because it's both hard to answer for the candidates (who wants to give up power?!) as well as very vital to the future of the "democracy" in our country. I think the sham of the 2000 election will probably happen again (where the people in the US voted in majority for Gore but Bush is in office). Pay very close attention to the question: "What are your positions on instant-runoff voting and proportional representation? Do you currently, and would you in the future, support any reforms to encourage a greater diversity in our political system?"

Bush's Reponse: Bush apparently didn't read the question, or maybe he read the title of the question and that was it. In no part of his answer did he say anything about instant-runoff voting, proportional representation or a greater diversity in the political system (stop this bi-partisan government). If I was giving out scores I would give a F- for having no clue what is going on.

Kerry's Reponse: It's pretty hard to tell what Kerry is saying here (no shocker). He talks about "electoral reform". WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?! He talks about voting rights. VOTING RIGHTS WERE NOT PART OF THE QUESTION! Kerry would also get a F-!


Bush's Reponse:
Woohoo, Bush is in his area and he knows it. So what does he do? He reminds America about his "No Child Left Behind Act". At first I thought Bush was off on one of his tangents, but then at the end, BAM, he answers the question!

Kerry's Response: Kerry's reponse is short and to the point. He basically says he will change the policy, but his reponse just doesn't come off as clear as Bush's


Kerry's Response:
Short as typical for Kerry during this "debate". He basically says that he wants 20% of our energy from renewable resources by 2020. Seems weak and unassured. How is he going to do this? Bills, policies, asking nicely!?

Bush's Response: Good solid answer from Bush. He's always taken heat for his environmental policies and his answer here is showing he wants us to move away from oil.

This question has a sly little hint to it. Look at the second part, "do you believe abstinence is enough?"

Bush's Response:
He talks about dumping more money into abstinence programs, saying it's the only true way of avoiding preggers and STDs. While true, it's pretty nieve to think you can get kids to stop having sex. He never really answers the second part but answers the first part well.

Kerry's Response: Very short, very to the point and answers both parts of the question.


Bush's Response:
I'm not sure about Bush's answer. He makes it clear that he wants marriage to be between a man and woman, which he has always said (no flip-flopping there!!). But look at the question, asking why the candidates won't talk about marriage AND civil unions. Bush never says anything about civil unions. The question has a slight tone of "respect gay people". Bush fails to answer the question.

Kerry's Response: He answers the question.


Kerry's Response:
He touts his healthcare plan but never really firmly answers the question. He talks about lowering the cost by $1000 but never says if he will reform it so that people in her situation (pre-existing condition) get covered. If I was her I would feel like my question wasn't answered, but given some hope my child would be covered.

Bush's Response: Just like Kerry he talks about lowering the costs, but doesn't address the first part of the question. Her son doesn't even GET health coverage because of current restrictions, so lowering the cost for health insurance she isn't GETTING isn't exactly going to make her feel good. So just like Kerry, I don't think Bush really answered this question fully.


Kerry's Reponse:
He answers the first part of the question, but doesn't give an example where he changed his mind. This would have been a PERFECT time to explain why he voted for the 87 million and then voted against it.

Bush's Response: He didn't answer it, he didn't even try! This is not only rude to those who put these questions together, but combined with his response during the second debate to a similar question shows an unbelievable amount of arrogance for a man in his position.

This question was asked by people of non-voting age. I think it's important though because it addresses a large concern from the people who are against the gay-marriage constitutional amendment, which is, do you think it's ok to legislate faith. Notice too it's from someone in Colorado... booya, rock on the Big C-O!

Bush's Response: A solid response that ties in well to his image. Faith is a large part of people's lives and it's impossible for a man raised on faith to ignore his beliefs when making important decisions. He makes this point very well in his response. However, he never mentions anything about any other faiths, he was asked specifically " it conflicting to take a position on issues based on Christianity.. when not everyone in America believes in God or Christianity?" He never answers this question directly, so I'd say he half-answers it, but half-answers it well.

Kerry's Response: Again Kerry shows his ability to provide short, ambiguous answers during this "debate". He talks about moral guideposts but it just doesn't come across as well as Bush. He does do a subtle job at answering the second part of the question, I got a very "it doesn't matter your faith as long as you have it" sorta vibe.

So some notes about the "Debate" in general:

I have to question the responses. During the live debates we can SEE the candidate answering the question. As much as I want to think Kerry and Bush took the time to answer the questions I have to question if they really did or if some intern on their campaign staff did it. Bush's responses are long, thoughtful, but sometimes off topic. This gives credibility to Bush since his responses are similar during live debates. Kerry's responses are often short and to the point. It makes you think he's answering them in a car as a intern dictates his answers while traveling from event to event. Adds credibility that he actually answered them himself, but you would hope he would take more time to thoroughly answer the questions. After all, it's not like these guys only had 90 seconds! Why are they off topic, why aren't so many solidly answered?!!?

I'm curious to see the rebuttals. This gives the candidates a good chance to THOROUGHLY answer the questions this time around. I'm curious to see how Bush and Kerry rebuttal to #11, since Bush didn't even answer.


At 11:42 AM, Blogger Timmy said...

Great post ( you seem to be one of the last nonpartisan bloggers left out there).
Keep it up.

At 12:40 PM, Blogger Matt said...

Issues of Morality:
::BONER as I should call him because he is being one doesn't even notice that Bush answers the question fairly::

BUSH: "I support the death penalty for heinous crimes, but only where the process is fair and guilt is certain. And I believe strongly that if it is administered justly, fairly, and swiftly, capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime."
::That would be a fair answer, of course 'non-partison' boner can't see that.::

KERRY: That is a good response, "Enforce the laws of the land" Excatly what a president should do.
::Oh I just love this comment..."Notice though how he just says 'in favor' and never says he'll actually change anything". Yes Boner, in favor means he wants to change them. Your liberal ideology prevents you from using more then 1% of your brain.

Bush: "Our Social Security system must adapt to these new realities if it is to remain strong in the 21st century. I favor the establishment of voluntary personal accounts for younger workers. These accounts would provide ownership, choice, control, and the opportunity to build a nest egg that workers could use for their retirement and pass on to their families"
Comment: He wants to privatize them so we have more control about where our money goes too. That is a good thing. I would rather have control over the money I earn then letting big government decide where it goes.
OF course Boner probably thinks that is a bad thing when his little stock account setup by his daddy paid for most of his schooling. wow!

Kerry:"We must end the practice of robbing the Social Security Trust Fund to balance the budget and protect savings for the future."
Comment: That wasn't even the question. Kerry has no real idea how to fix social security.

Bush: great answer for foreign policy. It proves time and time again the only way to combatant poverty, fundmentalist terrorism, and facist/communist regimes is to spread democracy and freedom for each of us to have a say in the way we run our lives.

Kerry: While boner compliments a quote from Teddy Rose, that comment is looked back by military historians as a major reason why WWII occured. The very fact that Kerry quoted this shows how he is going to run this country. 1938 hit and America carried a thought process of staying out of regional conflict. Time passed by as FDR (a true leader) wanted to move into war with Germany. Nation after nation Hitler invaded and conquerored. While European nations turned their heads, it was great minds like Wistom Churchhill that hit evil head on. Our lack of movement by taking a passive stance on threats helped Germany move faster into domination of Europe. It was not until 2k Shipmen lost their lives at Pearl Harbor that FDR got the support he needed to take Germany head on. "Walking softly" never got America anywhere. Regan "walked loudly and carried a big stick" and brought USSR down to it's knees.

::Unfortunely, passfists here do not under national security issues and how America has to project its military presense to keep the world a little safer. What Bonig does not understand is that countries like France, Germany, and Russia did not go along with Iraq and split ties with the US; It was never about loss of life or the morality of it, it was about the fact that those countries invested multiple billion dollar contracts in Iraq with Saddam let alone the fact they were getting kickbacks from him in the UN oil for food program. We do not have diplomacy with irrational socialist countries that take money over security of a nation. As far as Kerry's "passing the global test" is what scares me the most. I know what he said doesn't mean that he won't defend this nation when pushed to the limits, well, I dont want to be pushed to the limits. You see a threat, you take it out. A post 9/11 world does not allow for wish washy foreign policy such as Kerry's. European nations through the test of time have never stood up to facism, totalitarism, and communism. It was the American soldier that stood guard and fought those type of regimes. Collaborating with socialist nations that do not understand the threat that exists and belly over when they are hit hard (spain) should not be trusted and not looked to for support and strength. If you do not remember, there is over 30 countries that are helping with Iraq and we have their support. It is said to see countries like France and Germany that look to their pocket books before they look to their freedoms. ::

I want to leave on this note that people like Bonig take so likely about his freedoms today and policies that got him those freedoms!

"It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag"

At 4:08 PM, Blogger Timmy said...

...after just a cursory reading of your comment, I can see that you're a fucking 'tard. First of all, you can't even fucking spell "non-partisan" ("'non-partison' boner"). Secondly, I'm not quite sure what was meant by "people like Bonig take so likely". I think you menat to type "...take so LIGHTLY", but are too much of a shithead to bother learning basic grammatical/spelling skills.
Fuck Bush.
Fuck Kerry.

At 5:36 PM, Blogger Matthew said...

now be nice, he's not a 'fucking 'tard' , he's a close friend of mine, just ultra-conservative and very hard headed.

Matt: In reponse to your commentary on social security, you do realize that if all the sudden we let people dump their money into private holding accounts then old people wound't get checks. money I pay now goes to old people getting their checks now. you can't just "stop" the system, it wouldn't work...


Post a Comment

<< Home