Two Views Of The Same Thing

The great thing about blogs is you can read what others are thinking and relate that to what you are thinking.

I read Jeff's take on the debate and was stunned. What debate was he watching? Jeff said:

It's that I don't hear iron will [from Kerry]. And in a time of war -- war against terrorism -- we need a leader with iron will.

Later I read Jason's take on the debate. He was watching the same debate on I saw. Phew! For a second I thought that I was seeing things that didn't happen.

Jason points out that Kerry is stronger than Bush on Homeland Security, Nuclear Proliferation, and the war with Al Qaeda. Bush blew it on those and wins the Iraq argument simply because he's strong and wrong.

What Jeff misses is that Iron Will combined with bad policy is even more dangerous!

Comments

[rod]

Hitler had an iron will, Hitler also started a war on one front, and before he finished it took on another one that bogged him down, and let his first enemy come up and beat him.

[Charlie O'Donnell]

I polled my friends this morning... not a single person responded any differently than I thought they would.

Its just like Yankees-Red Sox. (I'm a Met fan, so I'm indifferent.) When you're a Red Sox fan, and the Yankees sign players, they're buying a championship, but when your team gets guys, somehow it doesn't count. When you're a Yankee fan, your team is just using the system in place to do what it takes to win, and at least your owner puts his money back into the team... and the Red Sox just won't go the extra mile.

We have way too much good guy/bad guy going on, and the extent to which people are actually influencible and open to persuasive argument is nearly nil--or maybe its just that those people are silent. Kerry folks now have a new term: Strong and wrong. Bush folks are now making hats that have "Certainty" on them. People watched the debate and skewed their view of it based on who they like to begin with--plain and simple. They "go native."

My question is, do you honestly believe that if someone's candidate didn't do a good job, they could be objective enough to admit it? I don't see it happening.

One thing I do buy into is the idea that the media needs a race for ratings--and that's not b/c I think there's a liberal media or otherwise... I think there's a profit motivated media. I think its hard to argue that a strong John Kerry performance in the debate is not in the economic best interest of the media. I feel like maybe they're looking for ways to credit his performance to give some life to a campaign that was losing ground recently.

[Jason Chervokas]

Charlie-

Of course you're right, mostly. There have been times when I've been surprised by candidates I didn't previously suuport. But in this election I don't think there really are any undecided voters. However there are weakly leaning voters--they kinda like one guy or the other, but then again they just might not turn up on election day. And there are make or break moments in a campaign.

I think Kerry had a lot at stake last night. With his support flattening especially among women, and facing Bush on the subject where the president had a supposed advantage, he could have doomed his candidacy with a weak performance. Instead he delivered a strong one and it will make a difference in the money he can raise and the sense of momentum that may sway weak supporters to actually turn out on election day.

No one really wins these debates, because they aren't really debates--nothing's contested; they're side by side press conferences. But as I said in my blog before last night I was a Kerry supporter by default because I believe the president's policies have sent the nation careening down a disasterous course. After last night's debate I no longer feel ambivalent about Kerry. So yeah I was predisposed to a positive reaction. But I didn't respond that way to Kerry's acceptence speech, which I thought was mediocre. The plain fact is that Kerry was very good last night and Bush wasn't at his best.

[Helmar]

What the US needs is not a leader with an "iron will", but one with a functional brain, and one who is not dancing to the tune of some cash-rich figures backstage. The last one befitting this description goes back a very long time indeed.

But does it surprise me that what you guys call for is once again synonymous with 'brute force'? No, because you are (like many others) still busy fighting the symptom rather than the cause. No rocket scientist required to know that it won't work that way. By now you should know better, I'd say, so such posts are saddening and disappointing more than anything else.

[heidi]

If you haven't gained much from the dabates that helps in making your own personal decisions that is because the questioning is biased. There are far and few questions that don't entail t he speaker to openly criticize their opponent in answering. I.e. "Mr. President, many say you opponent doesn't know...... how can you support that?" How is anyone supposed to answer that? I think each candidate should get and answer questions based on policies they want to implement and ideas they have about reform and the general management of this country. Otherwise, people are basing their votes on whether a candidate has a great talent for public speaking or one for flattery. Plus, why aren't the other candidates invited to have a debate. Why must it solely be the democratic and republican parties?
I agree that a brain is what this country needs and the debates so forth have only proven that neither candidate overtly uses his. The media sways one way or the other and reporting comes to us with sideways comments. But, each one of us needs to decide on his/her own who they believe would give us the most benifit as a nation and place THEIR vot. Otherwise, all these shenanigans are for nothing.