POLL: Good Debate -- If you are for Kerry.

Remove all ads!

Well, you can hardly blame an American president for looking after American interrests first, can you ? Would French people vote for a president who promises to bring the German economy back on track ? That doesn't make sense.

 

If it's absurd then it's probably not what they're trying to convince people of. I would imagine they mean that Kerry would try too hard to 'please' other countries, possibly foregoing arrangements that would be beneficial for America in exchange for international relations. Doesn't sound too bad but when a candidate's primay concern is pleasing the international community, that candidate will land flat on his face.

I'm not saying pleasing the international community is a bad thing, but when it becomes a driving force behind a president - especially the president of the richest, most powerful country on the planet - it can often result in that country weakening. In the case of being the richest and most powerful, falling to the 2nd richest and 2nd most powerful because of trying to please the international community.

Imagine the outrage in America if the world agreed that China was richer and more powerful than America. Who would American's blame? The president. National pride could NEVER take a blow like that and expect to keep the same president.

 

Look, the real issue is the war on terror, not national pride. Bush has tied Iraq to the war on terror and his over-arching policy of destroying the breeding grounds for "Isalmic" terrorists (please note that I use the term "Islamic" loosely). A grand scheme: destroy the despotic regimes that are friendly to terrorists and in their place create a model of democracy where terrorsim is less likely to breed, and that is more friendly to America. It is the neocon dream, to bring "Americanism" (their version of it) to undreamt of places, like the Middle East.

Great, until one looks at the results. Bush and the neocons embrace friendly despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia. And as some have pointed out, most of the high-jackers during the attacks on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia - speaking of "mixed messages." Can the "grand scheme" work if we only attack despots that are unfriendly to the US and embrace those who claim they are friendly to America, even though the harsh, autocratic nature of these regimes are breeding grounds for terrorists? And what makes them friends of America anyway? that they sell us cheap oil and lots of it? And what kind of chaos can result if we were to try to transplant Americanism to every country in the region?

Kerry has an entirely different approach - one that is more focused and concentrates on the terrorsts themselves and their organizations: Make as many friends as we can through diplomacy and negotiation; find political solutions among allies and friends; and then go after the terrorists and kill them, since it is in the interests of ALL peace-loving nations to do so. Also, the idea of an Arab summit to create political solutions to the current violent problems in the region can be very helpful. But most of all reduce our dependence on foreign oil, regardless of whom is making money on the current system. This is the best way to make America safe.

[ October 05, 2004, 02:31: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

And yet, something tells me that Iraq will not be the whole focus of this election, despite the best efforts of the press. To me, unless you have some direct emotional attachment to the war, if you've been out of work for the past year, the state of the economy may be the most important issue to you. I feel the upcoming debates on domestic issues could prove to be just as important.

 

Hey folks...

Don't get around this way very much anymore, but I had to stop by and see what the post-debate buzz was.

Yeah, Kerry won and the recent polls show that he is even or slightly ahead in the percentage who say they would vote for him. Bush's poll lead has been evaporating anyway since the convention and I'm not sure if the latest numbers aren't more of a natural evolution of that trend anyway. Bear in mind, while the percentage of voters who prefer Bush has fallen to essentially even with Kerry, most pudits show that Bush has actually made some key gains in the Electoral college.

I was disappointed by the President's performance...he has done much better in the past...in fact I would call this the worst I've ever seen.

 

HS - Hey, Bro, glad to see you around again. Tomorrow's debate should be quite interesting: Cheney and Edwards, both of whom are two very different characters. But as Aldeth said, the economy may turn out to be the real issue.

Edit - Since you are online, HS, check your PM.

 

Some interesting debate related materials:

Kerry addresses the 'global test' comment.

It looks like a Bush quote made it into the urban dictionary.

A plethora of political cartoons.

[ October 05, 2004, 03:35: Message edited by: Ankiseth_Vanir ]

 

I'm not saying that those ARE his defences. I was replying to the statement about how Bush & Co. would use the "global test" argument or somesuch. You said you couldn't understand it and frankly I don't either. I was offering what they COULD mean - since nobody seems to know exactly.

As for my patriotic zest? Frankly I can't see either deserving to be president. If I could I would vote Bush simply because he already is the president. In New Zealand we are lucky to have far more than one party, if we don't like National or Labour we can always vote ACT, Green, NZ1st or so forth.

 

But, they never have a chance. In New Zealand our parties DO have a chance, some holding up to 20% of Parliment.

 

And that's the big difference. I'm not from New Zealand, but my understanding is that in NZ, you vote for a party, and then that party gets a proportional representation in Parliament. For example if NZ1st gets 5% of the national vote, they get 5% of the seats on Parliament. When the Green Party gets 5% of the vote in the U.S., they get nothing. Should the Green party get about 25 seats in Congress? I don't know. But what I do know is that in places like NZ, you actually force elected officials to work together. Compromises and coalitions must be built in order to get a majority of Parliament to agree on an issue.

 

In a way I think it works like that in the US too, it is just that much of those compromises and coalitions are done within the parties. A large part of the Swedish political spectrum can be covered by the Democratic party alone as it would "umbrella" over large parts of our social democrats, our liber(tarians)als, farmers union and our moderates (liberal/conservative). There are only three parties here in Sweden which would for the most part not fit into the huge umbrella of the democratic party and it is the greens, the commies and the christiandemocrats (whose right wing are like Republican moderates).

 

Aldeth, that is pretty much how it works in New Zealand (there are a few complicating factors associated with electorate votes and party votes that result in the final representation not always exactly matching the proportion of votes but the principle is as you described).

 

Um, this is interesting and all but...weren't we talking about the debates?

Politely,

 

I have the over/under on this thread as being October 12th so be quiet DR

 

With apologies to Death Rabbit... I haven't seen the debate, but by (almost) all accounts Bush got whacked.

Same in Australia - there are two houses of parliament (Senate and House of Representatives). The Senate is decided by proportional vote.
The House of Reps is where government is decided by simple majority, but the Senate is always the most interesting. Generally you need compromises because a handful of independent/non-mainstream senators can hold the balance of power.

Am I just naive, or does the US not have a preferential voting system?