I’ve watched both Presidential debates with interest this year. I think it’s interesting to try to read into the messages that these politicians are trying to emote, and more so to see how voters are really reacting to the rhetoric. I’m not sure these thoughts will come out in any cohesive order, but here goes…
My neighbors have quite a few signs posted for Bush/Cheney in the flowerbeds of their front lawns. I think this is odd because my neighborhood is not in what I would consider a typical wealthy area. Granted, we’re probably a bit better off than in the inner city, but I know neighbors that are suffering the economic, educational, and social hardships that are endemic to typically middle-class America. Just on our block we have many lay-offs due to the economy, seniors with failing health care, teenage pregnancy, high secondary school tuition, astronomically high school taxes - you name it, we see it. But the Bush signs are there.
I learned why they’ve done this while on vacation last week - Bush is anti-abortion. I’m sorry to inform you pro-life folks of this reality, but when you vote for Bush only because of your religious affectation on this single issue, you’re basically ignoring any other important issue that a candidate will have to deal with when he’s elected to office. I hope you can live with your decision to inflict your religious beliefs on others when as a result you can’t find work (or you can but its salary doesn’t afford the gas to get there), your kids are only stupid enough to pass basic federal achievement tests, and your welfare/medicare runs out and you die because you can’t afford a simple dose of Canadian penicillin. You’ll be doing even more praying when your son is killed in Iraq because he’s done a double tour to avoid reinstating the draft to fulfill Bush’s pro-war policies.
But ignore my neighbors.
How is it that half of America can listen to these two men talk and come away with a sense that Bush knows how to do anything but produce a sound bite? He likes to posture and prance about, making scowling faces. If his emotions and beliefs would affect national policy, maybe we’d be getting somewhere.
Repeatedly, Kerry summarizes his plans for the future of the country. They all seem reasonably sound. No less sound than anything I’ve ever heard a president say. Let’s face it - we’re used to the unfulfilled politicians’ promises; we know it’s going to happen to some degree no matter who wins.
On the other hand, while Kerry is quoting his own figures, Bush simply says, “That won’t work.” He says, “My plan is working.” What is your plan Mr. Bush? The only impression I get from Bush is that if he actually laid out his plan on national TV, people would ask, “What the heck?” and finally realize what a stooge has been running this administration all along.
Bush’s proponents’ main issue with Kerry for a long while has been his “flip-flop” attitude. The problem with sticking to this is that Bush assumes everyone in America is a brainless sitcom watcher. Let’s get some things straight about how things work in the senate before we start throwing those types of accusations around.
Number one: In Bush’s world it is unreasonable to make a mistake, much less change your mind after you’ve realized that you’ve made a mistake. If Kerry voted for something that looked good at the time - something that was then not delivered by the president in the way that it was promised - isn’t it his duty to change his vote should the issue present itself again?
Number two: Laws passed through congress are notorious for the riders they carry. Imagine a bill enters congress called “End Cancer” and is actually capable of doing so if passed. What the name of the bill doesn’t tell you is that every man in California, Utah, and New Jersey must also be killed. This is hyperbole, but illustrates the point: Just because the name of the potential law looks great doesn’t mean the legislation is entirely appropriate. It is within any senator’s right to vote against a bill that isn’t in the best interests of the country or his constituents, even if it’s just a small part of the overall package.
Number Three: Senators and representatives don’t show up for a vote for many reasons. Mostly, it’s because they already know what way the vote will end, and their showing up won’t make any difference. They’re usually off doing other things that are important for the country, such as campaigning for presidential office. It sounds kind of selfish, but if you know that a vote is going to lose by 100 votes, and you’re just going to vote “no”, then why show up? Seriously, they know all of this stuff in advance. Think about it and you know it’s true. See also, NFL odds makers in Vegas - The outcome of senate votes is usually more certain than that.
Let’s be realistic, here. There must be reasons why people do things. We have to assume that someone who has gone to college, passed the bar, and become a senator has some reasoning power. I’m sure that Kerry could tell you what his reasoning is for voting against those bills, or changing his mind about money spent on the military, or not showing up for an insignificant vote. The bottom line is, these things aren’t as important as the overall job that the candidates can do; a job of which Kerry is now more demonstrative than Bush has ever been.
I’m really tired of hearing people support Bush because he stands up with that incredulous grin and says, “Anybody want some wood?” He does own an interest in a lumber company. And we’re to be suckers for his sincerity when all he needs is the political equivalent of a laugh track to fill in the gaps when he stands there slack jawed wondering what to say next. His rhetoric is tuned to lull you into security with him, to tell you exactly what you would want to hear if you’ve had a bad day and just want to watch a little mindless TV. He’ll convince you well that he can handle it, that everything’s ok, and then in four years you’ll find out just how screwed up he has left everything.
For example of how people have simply fallen for the “everything’s ok” act, look at this guy talking about Bush’s supposed coup in the debate. He talks about Kerry not showing up for a vote. He doesn’t say what riders were attached to the bill, or whether the bill was expected to be passed or shot down without Kerry’s vote. Yet just because Bush makes his irrelevant point with a snazzy half-cocked cowboy grin, he gets points with this blogger. I suppose that this posturing is one reason why people find politicians so distasteful.
But dude…
The PATRIOT act has a good sentiment in that it aims at coordinating law enforcement for the apprehension of terrorists. That’s wonderful. At the same time, it reduces the rights of US citizens. Yes, Brian, it’s true… While what you’ve said about having a judge review the requests for searches is true, the judge has no power to deny the request under PATRIOT, and that’s where the problem lies.
Who could honestly say they wanted to leave a child behind educationally? Nobody would. Yet there are significant problems with its current implementation. Schools are only getting enough money to implement the testing, not to institute the teaching. Even if they did have the money, schools would only test to the minimum of standards, which might be good in a educationally void state like Texas, but isn’t going to work here in the suburbs of the Northeast, where you would force good teachers to change their working methods just to get your test results.
Saddam may have eventually posed a great threat. Getting him out of Iraq may have been the greatest thing we’ve ever done for the Middle East. Yet, we’re spending billions of Americans’ dollars in this war. We’re losing more men every day. There is no end in sight. Terrorism has actually escalated since our invasion. Every day that goes by reveals more bad intelligence and less likelihood of WMDs. Don’t we need a new plan?
Nobody’s even given voice to some things that matter to me here at home. What about intellectual property rights? What about jobs and outsourcing? What about education, healthcare, and retirement? What about getting your nose out of my luggage at the airport?
After having my bag searched on the fifth straight day in Disney World, I asked the EPCOT guard what she was looking for. “Anything that they look for at the airport,” she said. “I don’t have any of that stuff,” I replied. The guy across from me said, “You can’t be too careful.” I told him, “Yes, you can.”
Certainly you can. I’ve never been searched in Disney World before. I had never been searched in the airport so vigorously before. But folks, let’s be realistic here. If I wanted to get a weapon on board a plane or into an amusement park, I could. (Brian will corroborate this point, as I’ve seen him actually do it.)
On my day at EPCOT, I had a messenger bag with snacks, maps, a hat, and an umbrella inside. The bag was searched. In my front pockets I had an enormous GPS radio (much bigger than Brian’s knife), a wallet (full of toxic chemicals), and the rental car keys (cut recently enough to still have a sharp edge). My pockets went unexamined, as did the outside pockets on the bag that was searched. If I wanted to go nutty in EPCOT, little miss 75-year-old security guard wasn’t going to stop me.
These little intrusions on our privacy (yes, a right guaranteed not to be abridged by the government under the 9th amendment) are all a result of fear instilled by the current administration.
Yet, half the country wants to stick with this current guy. What’s going on here? People really believe that he’s good for America? I’m curious to find people who believe this and offer a compelling argument for it. I should have talk to some of those Bush poster holders at the Chili cookoff yesterday.
