« TKO | Main | RIP Jacques Derrida »

I disagree.

First, in regards to non-subtantive issues such as scowling, I think Kerry's painted on smile needs to be wiped off. Furthermore, after the debate Bush was interacting well with audience members. You could tell Kerry was uncomfortable. A man of the people Kerry is not.

Second, Kerry stumbled on the stem cell question. And as far as the abortion quesiton goes, he completely did not answer the question. Mr. Kerry seems to think there is a constitutional right to abortion funding. If he truly does, he needs to check his Con Law cases. See Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 464 (1980).

Bush's rebuttal to the stem cell question kicked butt.

Third, I think Bush did a good job of showing Kerry's liberal record.

Fourth, Kerry has a lot of plans, or at least he talks a lot about his plans. Come on Kerry, give us some meat.

Fifth, Kerry seemed scripted.

Sixth, Kerry demonstrated that all of our pocket books would be empty if he were elected.

Well, I have said enough. Love the blog - I simply didn't want the marketplace of ideas to be lacking in this post. ;-)

Posted by: Jeremy Richey at October 9, 2004 11:16 AM

Hey JR, thanks for your responses. Isn't it funny how differently two people can see the same event? I guess that lends support to Kerry's argument that he never flip-flopped on the Iraq war. He "saw" his vote to authorize the use of force as a way to give the U.S. the bargaining power it needed to ensure that Saddam complied more fully w/sanctions, inspections, etc. His opponents now say they "saw" that vote as a complete blessing of Bush's irresponsible rush to war. Same event, two wildly divergent interpretations.

So we seem to see things differently, and in the interests of constructive exchange, I'll just say a few more words about two of your points:

First, Kerry could have been more forceful on the stem cell question, but I thought he did an excellent job of explaining why he supports it. I also heard a clear answer from him on abortion: I respect those who disagree with me, but regardless of what I think, I can't impose my opinions or beliefs on the matter on the rest of the country through legislation. As far as the constitutional right to abortion, Kerry didn't say one existed; he said he'd protect people's constitutional rights, and Roe, Griswold, and Casey have said that the right to have an abortion is included in those rights. No, the court has not said "There is a constitutional right to abortion," but it's said abortion is protected w/in the liberty interests of the 14th Amendment, so the effect is much the same. Bush, on the other hand, said something like he would never allow federal tax money to be used to fund abortions, but doesn't this already happen? Don't many of our nation's health clinics receive federal funding? Perhaps I missed something somewhere...

Second, yes, Kerry is "a liberal." To me, that's a good thing. I don't understand how wanting to protect civil rights and the environment, favoring diplomacy over war wherever possible, and working for a more equal and just society could be a bad thing. Of course, you could probably argue that a right-wing conservative has the same goals, so I guess the question is what do these things mean to you? And again, there are different ways to see it. I heard a pundit last night say that the two candidates answered all the questions very differently. Bush was big-picture, he spoke primarily about principles and stayed away from specifics. Kerry relied much more on facts, statistics, and historical arguments to support his points. Which is more convincing? To me, the facts and statistics are more convincing because principles are like empty vessels. Here's a principle Bush relied on last night: "I guess you could say I'm a good steward of the land." The principle is that he values being a good steward of the land. But what the hell does that mean? It means nothing w/out facts, and the facts make Bush's version of that principle look pretty ugly to me. See Greenwatch, the Bush record from the NRDC, or the record from Environment 2004. This is defensible how?

I get the idea that you are against abortion (just a guess, please correct me if I'm wrong); so for the sake of argument let's grant that all abortion is murder. Fine. But does it make sense to vote for Bush on that issue alone, when your vote also means that your kids, should you ever choose to have any, will inherit a perilously polluted planet, one much less healthy than it would be if Kerry were elected? If life is precious, isn't it important to protect the world that makes life possible? Also, it's one thing to try to stop abortions, it's another thing to take care of those kids once they're born. Do you see Bush doing anything to make sure children and new mothers have health care and quality social services? I don't. Finally, if life is so precious, how can Bush support the death penalty? Don't anti-abortion folks see a serious contradiction there? My point is that if you vote on a single issue like this, you may be cutting off your nose to spite your face. And I'm not saying you are a single-issue voter like this; I'm just using abortion as an example of how just one of Bush's principles ("all life is precious") really seems to be a sham. He says what he knows a certain group wants to hear, and somehow that group then ignores the fact that his policies don't really serve their goals.

So, clearly, I don't understand the support for Bush; even people who agree with his principles should be appalled by his policies because the two are so often in conflict.

To be fair, Kerry's a big fat hypocrite, too, but I think he's a lot more self-aware and honestly I think he understands and cares about "average" people more than Bush does. Both his rhetoric and his voting record support that, as far as I can tell.

Man, I didn't mean to write so much about this. I guess you could say I think it's pretty important. ;-) Any other thoughts? (From JR or anyone else?)

Posted by: ambimb at October 9, 2004 02:44 PM

I want to add to AmbImb's response... Bush's answer on stem cells did not "kick butt." I was, as Kerry pointed out, a very "wishy washy" answer (some might even say "flip-floppy"). He said he wanted stem-cell research to continue then he said that we shouldn't be allowed to use embryonic stem cells for the research. Someone can correct me, because I am not a research biologist, but embryonic stem cells are the only true stem cells. The whole point of stem cells is that they are undifferentiated, so they can become liver cells, or bone marrow cells, or nerve cells. Adult and umbilical "stem cells" are close, but they are partially differentiated already, so they cannot truely become any of those other cells.

Bush made a big deal about "not destroying life to save life." Even if you assume, just for the argument, that using embryo's for stem cells (most of which weren't ever going to become a human baby) is "destroying life" (which I don't), that is what medical research has always done. What do you think we do with lab rats... set them free after we give them AIDS? Adult human beings have died as part of research and clinical trials of treatments... but that is part of the price you pay. I think using this argument just shows an utter lack of respect for life because you are telling people with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and any one of the many other diseases that could be cured with this research that their life isn't as important as an embryo that isn't going to become a baby anyway.

Posted by: Unreasonable Man at October 9, 2004 03:22 PM

Hey guys, I wish I could continue the discussion a little longer, but unfortunately I need to focus the rest of my free time on my law school studies. I am sure you understand.

In regards to the Kerry abortion stance, I am going to direct you to an article that a good friend of mine wrote when he was in college. He is now a 2L law student. Assume for the sake of argument that life begins at conception.

Click here for the article.

Have a good evening.

-Jeremy-

Posted by: Jeremy Richey at October 9, 2004 05:55 PM

BTW - Click on the "here" for the link.

Posted by: Jeremy Richey at October 9, 2004 05:56 PM

Thanks a billion for the video link! I also apparently was watching a completely different debate than half the people responding in the polls.

Posted by: em at October 9, 2004 07:34 PM

Well ambib, you hit the nail on the head about one rock star blogger, and imho you are pretty right-on about last night's debate, too.

I initially felt that Bush took the *1st* debate, simply because Kerry didn't attack Bush with the sense of moral outrage I felt appropriate.

But Kerry seems to have won that one, and now this one too, due perhaps to TV's nature as a 'cool' medium, where folks like Howard Dean can see their chances evaporate in one 'uncool' barbaric yalp.

And I've gotta say that Bush looked pretty barbaric last night. Running over poor terrified Charlie Gibson like a talking tank. Jumping up and down. Shouting repeatedly at the audience. A man who's visible response to each question posed was a visible "who the fuck are you to ask!"

His dodge of the "have you made any mistakes" question re-enforced his image as a thoughtless and obtuse man who cannot conceive of either having made or making a mistake -- a trait that's now visibly dangerous.

Finally, Bush on the abortion question was offensively stupid. Jumping from his chair he declared Kerry's position a bit of nuanced and flip-flopping incoherence, before laying out his own opinion which was....what? Is he pledging to criminalize abortion? Killing a pregnant woman is double murder he says...so wouldn't killing just the fetus be a murder of the single variety? What if anything was Bush suggesting he'd *do* about abortion?

Bush enunciated only a vague commitment to a "culture of life," which seemed to reassure the agitated young questioner in the front row. But I don't think that his bitter denunciation of Kerry will convince any serious Pro-lifer that Bush laid out a coherent pro-life position. Only those satisified to hear a few conservative code-words will be satisfied.

Bush may have bullied some viewers into adopting his opinion. But no one who watched last night would stand up and pronounce Bush the "guy you'd want to have a beer with" a la 2000. At best he'll be a "guy we'd better have in office," to those who are convinced that only a man like Bush can be counted on to sufficiently brutalize our enemies.

I don't think he's playing a winning line here.

Posted by: washburn at October 9, 2004 09:04 PM

Erm. Not "Ambib." Rather "Ambimb," I mean, of course.

Posted by: washburn at October 9, 2004 09:08 PM

I know some have interpreted Bush's actions/voice as forceful in a good way, but to me it just came off as frustrated, aggrevated, and pushy. And jumping on the moderator? Not such a good idea when you're trying to present yourself as a level-headed head of state, etc. Plus he's starting to sound like a one-trick pony (though I will agree that so can Kerry these days).

I was equally surprised that Kerry also began actively earning my support. I was impressed by the way he handled the abortion question, for one.

I'm finding myself more entertained by the debates than I'd expected, overall.

Posted by: raquel at October 10, 2004 07:08 PM

I watched it in an anti-bush partisan setting, but none of us thougth the 'i want a supreme court that will vote for me' will play well with a swing voter. Bush's sense of humor is really innapropriate.

Posted by: actus at October 11, 2004 01:21 AM