Well, it seems that any self-respecting blogger over the last few days has written about the debate, so I guess I'll chime in. Before I do, I will preface my thoughts with these tidbits of info:
I am a registered voter but I am not enrolled with any politcal party. I am fiercely independent. I vote for the person I think is going to do the best job, not the party.
I consider myself informed but I am not an 'expert' on current issues. I don't watch the news. I used to work in the television news biz and I know what it's all about. I know how slanted it is. 'If it bleeds it reads', sex and scandal sells and ratings are all they really care about. Trust me.
I read the local newspapers and I listen to the news on the radio on my way in to work. So, I have a general idea about whats going on, current events, etc, but I cant point out exact dates, times, facts, quotes.
I care deeply about our soldiers. I am too old to enlist so I can't just go pick up a weapon and help out directly. I feel that every soldier is personally protecting my family and when I think of what they are doing for me, it does bother me deep down that I can't do more to help in some way. I try to find ways help and support our soldiers in other ways, feeble as they may be, compared to the sacrifice they are giving for me.
There ya go.
All that being said, here's my take.
There are things about Bush I like. I feel he is a strong leader. I like his direct approach. I like that he cares more about what's best for the U.S. and less about what the rest of the world thinks about it. I voted for Al Gore in the last election but like a lot of other Americans on Sept 11th I was saying to myself, "Thank God George Bush is President".
There a lot of things about Bush that I do not like. There are a lot of things about Bush that I have a complete disagreement with. I am concerned about what I have seen as an erosion of free speech rights. I am in complete disagreement in terms of protecting the environment vs. drilling for oil, etc. I think that corporations are given way to many 'breaks' that wind up hurting the working class. The ever-climbing deficit is alarming, considering it was a surplus 4 years ago.
That being said, I can't really say what I like or dislike about Kerry. I have no idea where the guy stands on anything. Am I not paying close enough attention? I don't think so because I'm obviously not alone here.
So prior to the debate I was on the fence, kind of leaning towards Bush, kind of hoping Kerry would come out with something solid that would tell me what his plan is and maybe give me a reason to vote for him. I had very little idea what this guy planned to do, should he win the election. I know he wants to roll back the tax cuts on the 'richest' Americans, which I find a bit suspicious. Lets face it, democrats dont have a history of lowering taxes. I know he wants to be more involved with the U.N., another area I find dubious, since I don't think the best interests of the U.N. are necessarily the best interests of the U.S.
The debate pretty much solidified my vote for Bush based on three things that Kerry said.
Kerry said,
"You don‘t send troops to war without the body armor that they need. I‘ve met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin places, Iowa, where they‘re going out on the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send to their kids. Some of them got them for a birthday present.
I think that‘s wrong. Humvees -- 10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren‘t armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don‘t have the armament." When he made this statement, I literally got pissed off and shouted at the T.V. "Ya just lost me right there." Not because I think the soldiers don't need more armor, (obviously). I got pissed off because it is my understanding that he has voted
against funding that would provide this armor as well as other resources to our soldiers. Wether this vote was a symbolic gesture or not does not matter to me. He voted against providing more armor.
Strike 1.
I completely disagreed with him when he said, you have to pass the "world test" if you are going to act pre-emptively to protect yourself. I just did not agree with this at all. I feel the U.S. should participate in the U.N. and be part of the world. I obviously want the U.S. to have good relationships with other countries. But the concept of having to get the permission of the U.N., to do what we think is right to protect our country? Nope. Total disagreement there. Sorry.
Strike 2.
Resuming bi-lateral talks with N. Korea. A bad idea, in my opinion. Further, he again confused me by somehow stating that he was going to return to a bi-lateral dialog with North Korea but at the same time, continue to have multi-lateral talks. Huh?
LEHRER: I want to make sure—yes, sir—but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand—the people watching understand the differences between the two of you on this.
You want to continue the multinational talks, correct?
BUSH: Right.
LEHRER: And you‘re willing to do it...
KERRY: Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues, from the armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues and the nuclear issues on the table.What? I admit I'm not the smartest guy in the world. What did I miss here?
Strike 3.
Some other things that annoyed me.
To solve the issue of extracting ourselves from Iraq he is going to have a Summit meeting with other countries? What good is that going to do? Didn't we try to get as much help as we could before we went in? Don't we already have the help of other countries? What, it doesn't count unless one of the countries is either France, Germany or Russia? Great Britain, Australia, Poland and the other participants are totally dismissed and don't count?
Yes, I realize we bear most of the cost for this war and I'm not happy about that but I don't see how having a summit is going to somehow convince other countries to provide more help.
Didn't the President recently speak before the U.N. and talk about getting more involved in fighting terrorism or was I not paying close enough attention?
Kerry says he's going to do a better job training Iraqis. How? Is he going to fire all the Generals doing it now? How is he going to do it? He just says 'I'm going to do a better job'.
How does he plan to pay for all this stuff he's going to accomplish in 4 short years?
So there you have it. Take it for what it is. They say opinions are like assholes. Enjoy the shredding.