How could he forget Poland?

Doesn’t John Kerry know who are real friends are? What kind of an American is he?

Answer: not the kind of American we want running the White House, that’s for sure.

As anyone who caught the debates the other night surely knows by now, John Kerry is the kind of namby pamby who puts passing some sort of “global test” before the safety of the nation, whereas George Bush does whatever he likes, as long as he has the support of the globe’s moral compass: “Poland”.

The Race so Far

My gut reaction? John Kerry was good. Imagine the whole gamut of issues which affect the lives of people in America, and around the globe, today. It is with these issues and basic societal constructs that the leadership of the “free world”* should be concerned. Of this list of issues, the leadership of America has always been content to concern itself with only so much as it needs in order to get re-elected. That is, there are basic, grossly unfair tenets of modern American society which are questioned by very few — not by those who suffer under them, and certainly not by those who profit from them. Of this massive list of issues (which only progressives and “radicals” actually ever discuss), Kerry seems willing to examine a much larger percentage than Bush. Granted, that percentage is still achingly small, but, where Kerry admits that things are going “catastrophically” badly, Bush is still sporting the biggest pair of rose-colored glasses the world has ever seen. It’s possible the power of the glasses is significantly aided by his own colossal stupidity (or peevish small-mindedness … to appease those that think he is some sort of unheralded political genius. Proof for which is given only by the fact that he seems poised to be elected once again by the most bewildered flock of uninformed sheep the world has seen since Orwell predicted them in 1984).

*ignoring the fact that this term simply refers to all nations willing to support the US no matter what its policies are.

The problem we really face this election season is that we really have to choose between the lesser of two evils. We have a “democratic” system that has almost completely succeeded in shutting a third-party candidate out of the system entirely. You probably haven’t heard a lot from Ralph because he’s been so busy trying to even get his ass on the presidential ticket in most states. If you watch the progressive news-sites, you’ve probably seen that he has, at least, continued publishing, and is, in my opinion, still the only man in the race with the ideas that this country (or, actually, any country) needs in order to be a moral, functional member of an international community (instead of a marauding, piratical empire whose future is acknowledgedly short, but whose leaders accept this limitation in order to feast on its corpse for a generation or two).

I still have the feeling that Bush is going to get elected anyway (after speaking with people actually in the States, who can better feel which way the wind is blowing). But, as a poster to America’s Lost Respect (Paul Krugman) says: “If the American public have not figured out this country is headed in the wrong direction by now there is little hope for the future.”

I would lighten up that mood a bit by saying that there is little hope for morality in the near future. From a comment called “Clarity” in Recycling The Debates In Real Time (Plastic):

“…I also really want all those who vote for Bush … [to know] they were DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for whatever horrorshows erupt. … Many people seem to think there is no serious down side to him. In some ways I really want to see the further disintegration of US leadership and respect to the point where even idiots and isolationists can see the consequences.It would seem that most people apparently vote for the W with less critical analysis than they would apply to buying a new pair of shoes. (emphasis added)”

That hits the nail right on the head. Too many people think it’s a game and that they can “stick it to the smarty-pants” by voting for the brush-clearing Bush. Most people also happen to be disadvantaged in that they have no access to any news sources that report the truth. When Bush says that Afghanistan has “10.5 million registered voters”, no one calls him on the fact that that is far more people than should be legally allowed to vote in that country. When Kerry mentions that the elections in Afghanistan have been delayed 3 times, that slides on by and people just remember that Bush said that democracy has been restored. Mission accomplished.

There are an increasing number of opinions of late that think that America will not right itself based on the current situation. It has to get even worse before people realize that they need to start participating to make it better. Not exactly Mad Max conditions, but a whole helluva lot closer to that than we are now. The suffering is not high enough to make people realize that they need to respect other people in the world … so that they don’t kill us. Law of the jungle.

On to the debate analysis.

Debate Breakdown

The quotes are pulled form the transcript I found at: Sept. 30, 2004 − Presidential Debate − Transcript. I watched the actual debate on a stream provided by C-SPAN.

Here are the interesting points that came up:

Style

Bush always addresses the “Murkan People”, whereas Kerry responds directly to the moderator. Kerry is just so much more articulate that it looks like they’re literally speaking different languages. Seems to have a lot to do with the fact that Bush has so many things he’s not allowed to say because it’s all so incriminating.

War Presidents

They both seem comfortable with the idea of being at war. America is at war, must stay at war to fight and kill enemies and will stay in Iraq until the job is done. The US military will be increased to deal with the many dangers facing our fair land today. Kerry is against the “back-door” draft that the Bush administration seems to be slouching toward. He did not say he was against any draft at all though. Both indicated that they were going to “hunt down killers”. You’ve just got to grin and admire the level of political rhetoric in this country.

Israel

The war in Iraq is an important part of keeping Israel safe. Both Kerry and Bush made an explicit point of mentioning this fact, inconsequential as it may be to the vast majority of the American populace. Curiouser and curiouser. Let the fires of conspiracy theory be lit anew!

Nukes

They agree that rest of the world should not have nuclear weapons. Kerry thinks that America as well should not have nukes. Bush thinks we should — to defend ourselves. That is the lever he will use to push the cretins in our country into voting for him. Kerry was adamant that nuclear disarmament was the paramount issue facing America, and the world, today. Bush claimed it was his issue too … but it really had the feel of a “me too” answer. I’m curious what he would have said had he had to answer first.

Tax breaks/class warfare

Kerry twice acknowledged the class differences between he and Bush and everyone else when he said he did not need the massive tax break the Bush presidency gave him. He said the money would have been far better spent on education. He also mentioned the massive cost of the war, saying that while we build police and fire squads in Iraq, we dissolve funding for them at home. Bush replied that his administration had enacted a three-fold increase in home-security spending (probably tricky math here, knowing his budget analysis). Kerry squashed that bynoting that an increase means nothing if it’s still not enough money to get the job done. Then it’s just more money thrown away. (or towards favorite companies, if you’re a true cynic. And I am.)

World opinion

Whereas Kerry did not mention that he had any interest in changing the way things work at a basic level, he did indicate an interest in returning to a system in which the major nations of the world can agree on the way that the poor people of the world will continue to be subjugated instead of the Bush system, which promises to simply kill them all off until the complaining dies down to a dull roar.

Here’s where the Republicans are probably making the most of Kerry’s use of the words “Global Test”, by which he meant the most basic of moral standards to which America should hold itself accountable (a concept obviously not understood by the leader of the administration that so successfully quashed the entire Abu G’hraib investigation).

Bush thinks even the idea that America’s actions should pass a “Global Test”, in which our actions are defendable to other countries, is a joke. Bush only seems to care what Poland thinks. For those concerned about what Kerry actually said during the debate, here’s the quote in full:

“But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.”

Not very controversial and the kind of statement any leader of a “free” nation should be happy to make.

Pre-emption

Both think that the President (not Congress) has the right to send America into a war. That’s not true. The Congress does. Kerry doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with the extra power the executive has siezed under the Bush administration. Just another thing we don’t talk about.

Iraq

Bush carefully did not say he wasn’t wrong about Iraq, he just noted (with careful references) that Kerry used to be just as wrong. That’s just the kind of trickiness that plays very well. Makes Kerry look like a flip-flopper when he’s simply realized, lacking the zealotry that Bush posesses, that Iraq is completely lost.

9-11

It’s the reason for everything, according to Bush. He accused Kerry a few times of having a “pre-9-11 mentality”. The fact that 9-11 happened is Bush’s reason for not needing to explain anything or justify any reasoning or actions. He doesn’t even seem to be ashamed or chagrined about it. He just believes (see zealotry below)

Homeland security

Both babbled on and on and on about homeland security as if every American was in immediate grave danger. Bush gave it the same lip service he’s been giving, but said several times that we need to stay hyper-offensive here (bringing back memories of “if we don’t fight them in Iraq, we’ll be fighting them in the streets of New York”). Kerry listed the massive gaps in our security in America. Neither one of them even questioned the need for a hyper-secure America. Neither questioned the threat. That’s part of what we don’t talk about.

Sanctions

Both talked about sanctions as if they were perfectly legal means of “encouraging” countries to see things our way. Remember that Iraq’s sanctions were horribly deadly for the people … and only consolidated Saddam’s power. The war is even worse for the people, but NEITHER is a humanitarian solution that’s good for the people of Iraq. Neither one questions the legality of sanctions that are ostensibly aimed at coercing a government to see it our way, but whose consequences always include killing hundreds of thousands of that country’s citizens.

Lying

Kerry shot his lies full of holes. Bush did not refute solidly at all. Sometimes it seemed as if Bush had trouble picking which of his pat answers best fit the question. That’s why it often felt like he was in a different place when the question was asked. When Kerry actually said Bush lied about Korea (facts incorrect, bla bla), and Lehrer asked Bush what he thought about that … Bush totally shied away. Coward.

“Wrong place, wrong time”

Bush desperately used his 30 seconds three times to give the “wrong place, wrong time” plea, saying the troops can’t see us waver. We can never be wrong. What he doesn’t answer is what happens when the troops know we were wrong and they see us not acknowleding it … not very reassuring for anyone. It is, however, natural that Kerry is more willing to see Bush’s war as a disaster.

Zealotry

Bush is a zealot. He has a simple view of the world works. Anything that could refute that world view simply does not exist. Kerry, at least, seems to have the capacity to understand when he’s supporting something wrong, and perhaps even feels ashamed about it. Bush simply believes. He is chosen. He cannot waver. Nor does he need to. Because he’s never wrong.

Kennedy references

These were a nice touch by Kerry. Most people in America still see Kennedy as an aberration from standard Cold War rhetoric (though even a brief perusal of his presidency shows it be just as cruel and calculating as all other post-war presidents). Simply put, Kerry’s DeGaulle story rocked. Here it is:

“I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, Here, let me show you the photos. And DeGaulle waved them off and said, No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me.

“How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we’ve done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. … You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do.”

Truly a righteous dig at the disastrous effect Bush has had on our international standing, in a way even Bush’s faithful just had to understand.

ICC (International Criminal Court)

Kerry support it, whereas Bush flat-out says the criminal court is crap because it could prosecute Americans. This is kindergarten bullshit and is very isolationist and short-sighted. It’s a very belligerent policy and he stands behind it 100%. He doesn’t even acknowledge that there might be something wrong with “might is right” or that it could cost him the election. He honestly thinks that this is not a politically damaging stance in the US because he’s a zealot and trusts there are enough xenophobic zealots to re-elect him. I hope mightily that enough people in America will prove him wrong. If not, … see discussion above.

North Korea

Kerry brought it up a million times, but it’s almost too abstract an issue for the American people. Bush has too easy a time deflecting it with something that sounds just as reasonable to an uninformed voter. Bush had a huge blind spot about seeing why the US goes with “diplomacy” (read: not doing anything) with Korea and all-out, immediate invasion in Iraq (even when Kerry directly asked him).

Iran

Bush literally blamed the previous administration for the sanctions against Iran, but he’s been in office for FOUR YEARS … what, was there a “do not touch these sanctions” note on it? Was Bush afraid Clinton would yell at him if he removed them? No. He likes them and supports them. I call bullshit.

Stupid jokes

Bush didn’t notice that the jokes that kill at his speeches to rooms full of loyalty oath-signing zombies are going to fall flat at a debate (no one’s laughing, you dolt).

Wives

Bush didn’t mention Theresa. Kerry admires Laura Bush. WTF? Kerry, you’re such a whore. You don’t have to suck up to Laura Bush, you idiot. She’s a useless dishrag of a woman. The fact that you’d whore yourself out to say you admire her when she has done nothing of note is a big, fat pile of demerits in my book.

Putin & Stalin, sitting in a tree…

They are both unbelievable whores for Putin and do not acknowledge that he has made a Stalinist power grab under the guise of terror. Bush probably envies him (Putin has that dictatorship that Bush once mentioned would be nice to have) and Kerry’s following his Democratic handlers’ orders to toe the line. Why?

God

Both got in that all-imporant blessing of America.