Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘john kerry’

Washington, DC, ten days before one of the most hotly-contested presidential elections in decades, is not a pretty sight. In fact, it’s downright scary.

Everywhere I turned were political messages. The restaurants, the coffee shops… it was just inescapable. While walking down the street, the same woman asked me three times if I wanted to “help elect John Kerry”. Each time I smiled at her and said, “sorry, I’m Canadian”. By the third time I just said “still Canadian” and kept walking. She didn’t miss a beat.

Being Canadian in Washington ten days before the election is kind of like being the only sober person in a room full of drunks. By being a step or two outside the action, you can afford a sense of perspective that most people don’t have. Maybe that’s why it’s so obvious to me how bad things truly are.

The truly frightening thing to see is how people are confusing political opinion with personality. These days, you don’t just “vote” Republican or Democrat, you are a Republican or a Democrat – in a much more literal sense than ever before. People assume that if you’re on the opposing side, you’re lower than pond scum, definitely not worth speaking to or even the time of day. Everyone assumes the people they’re speaking to are on “their” side, and that their favourite pastime is to bash the other side. It frustrates them to no end when you choose not to play along.

I can’t help but wonder what will happen the day after the election. I’ve never seen people so divided. But somebody’s going to be elected, and the half of the people who didn’t vote for him will be very disappointed. Will the country be able to reunite and get over this election and move on? I wonder how long the wounds will take to heal.

A message to my American friends, if you’re reading: I realize that, despite the impact that this election may have on us as your neighbours and on the rest of the world, it’s really your election and your decision. I don’t think we have any business butting in. I realize passions are running high and you probably think that catastrophe will strike if your side loses. But please, please don’t lose sight of what’s important. Whether Bush wins, or Kerry wins, life will go on.

I’m just glad to be back home, where I can watch the rest of this boxing match from the sidelines.

Or so it seems according to the latest Reuters poll that is now giving him a 4-point lead over Kerry, after being virtually neck-and-neck beforehand.

This is an amazing feat for a President who has stumbled his way through these debates, doing a convincing job of making it look like he was being fed the answers from offstage. The wide-eyed surprise, the long pauses, the stumbles… sure, that’ll win him a debate.

But it has. Because Kerry has fought this entire campaign on the basis that people should elect him because he’s not Bush. That’s been fine and dandy for attracting the “we’d rather vote for Hitler than Bush” crowd… but hasn’t done much to sway the undecideds.

I’m no particular fan of Bush, but it’s looking a lot like four more years are coming up. In this, an election that the Democratic candidate should have won in a cakewalk. The Democrats will have nobody to blame for a loss but themselves.

Kerry: “Bush keeps giving tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans… yadda yadda yadda.”

Bush: “Kerry’s a liberal senator from Massachusetts… yadda yadda yadda.”

Yawn.

Bush may have come across as a blustering idiot… but Americans have known he’s a blustering idiot for years. They knew it last time. They voted for him anyway. They’ll probably do the same this time.

Paul Martin proved that you can lose the debate and win the election. Kerry may have won the battle tonight but at the moment, he still seems to be losing the war.

Presidential candidates have long seemed like puppets on strings. Now they really are, with the puppet debate:

The felt flew during a rain-drenched Times Square debate between President Bush and Democratic contender John Kerry – in puppet form – on the afternoon before the real deal in Florida.

Thanks to “Avenue Q” producers and cast members, the naughty puppet citizens of the Tony-winning Broadway musical launched edgy questions about such edgy issues as unemployment, gay marriage and military service during Thursday’s “Avenue Q & A.”

It was a one-time-only comedic event that warned: “Any similarity between puppets and actual presidential candidates is purely coincidental.”

Three cheers to Avenue Q, one of the most brilliant, funny shows I’ve ever seen, for this hilarious concept. I bet the debate was more interesting than the real one.

In the next few hours, there will be a zillion opinions and analyses offered of tonight’s US Presidential Debate. Most will be partisan – clearly so. So I thought I’d offer my opinion, not as a Democrat or a Republican, but merely as an interested observer.

Overall, both Bush and Kerry came across much better in the debate than any of the Canadian candidates did in our election debates a couple of months ago… but unfortunately, that’s not saying much. Neither of them seemed like buffoons. Both were well-coached, and both were trying very hard to inspire the confidence of the American people. But neither is a true leader. Neither offers the type of inspired, straight, honest, and committed leadership that I believe the American people want and maybe even deserve.

Kerry is the better debater. Hands down. He had the luxury of speaking in generalities, because he doesn’t have to defend his record the way Bush does. Even at that, he sounded stiff, robotic, and hedged on most of the issues. Although he relaxed somewhat as the debate went on, he seemed on more solid ground while attacking Bush’s past decisions rather than laying out future strategies of his own. Bush’s strategy was to paint Kerry as indecisive, waffling, and lacking in true conviction, and Kerry played into his hands. By speaking endlessly about how he wants to bring fresh credibility to the US on the international scene, he was basically saying that his main basis for being elected is that he’s not Bush. Well, that’s not good enough.

Bush, if anything, sounded more relaxed than Kerry and relied heavily on the “aw-shucks” demeanour that he plays like a fine-tuned instrument. That said, many questions – which should have been anticipated by his team – left Bush looking like a deer caught in headlights. Despite throwing in a few 4-syllable words (I wonder if they were spelled out for him fo-ne-ti-cly) in rehearsed statements, Bush stumbled often and didn’t seem really comfortable unless he was repeating one of his talking points… over and over again. If I heard him use the words “mixed messages” one more time, I might have thrown something at the TV.

Kerry spent a lot of time attacking Bush but it’s difficult to ascertain what Kerry’s positions are. I was watching and really hoping that he would put forth some vision. Bush, on the other hand, spent a lot of time defending decisions and positions that were ill-advised or just plain wrong.

Watching Bush was more like watching a second-grader learn to read. He slipped up at one point, saying “Saddam Hussein – er – I mean, Bin Laden”, which of course, proved Kerry’s point – that Bush couldn’t tell the difference. Major wince. Oh, and I still maintain that anyone who can’t pronounce “nuclear” shouldn’t be allowed to have his finger on the button.

Kerry, for his part, scored points on the attack in the manner of a veteran debater. He quoted popular sayings quite often. He gave rehearsed answers to questions that weren’t quite asking for them. He spun a web of words. The problem was finding the substance behind the words. He criticized Bush at every turn but didn’t offer anything concrete in terms of his own plans or strategies, beyond merely stating that he has some. Does he? Beyond wanting to call in more allies and make multilateral decisions, I’ve yet to hear them. He may have wiped the floor with Bush in debate technique, but Bush might still retain the psychological edge.

On a personal note, some of Kerry’s positions – namely his continued faith in the UN to resolve international conflict, and his seeming thought that America can make the terrorists hate it less by being nicer – concern me. It’s hard to tell if these are his positions though, since he hasn’t been too clear. Bush, for his part, has always concerned me and continues to do so. He seems to show an appalling misunderstanding of the distinctions between different groups, preferring to paint them all as the generic “bad guys”.

Overall, I’m glad I’m not American and don’t have to vote in this election.

Update: For more in-depth coverage, see Damian Penny’s liveblogging of the debate.

Americans: don’t like your choice between Bush and Kerry? Tired of political races having too much attack and too little chic? Vote Carrie for President.

Go check out the site; it’s a hilarious spoof on celebs in politics.

Back in January, I had made a promise on this blog not to talk about the American election until September, in effort not to bore everyone ad nauseum.

I hope you all found the breather refreshing. But it’s now September, so the election is fair game. And while I don’t plan on turning this into an American politics blog, the occasional mention will probably creep in from time to time in the next couple of months.

Here’s a summary of some of my thoughts to date:

Either-or

First off, I’m really really glad not to be American right now.

Please don’t take this the wrong way. I don’t dislike Americans. I don’t hate the United States. But I’m grateful not to have to figure out who to vote for in this election.

The problem with the two-party system – and I’ve ranted about this before – is that they are two-party systems. Either-or. Left or right. One extreme or another.

I’ve always more or less assumed I’d vote Democrat if I were American… but could I really bring myself to vote for the party who is in denial that a war is being fought? Whose idea of Mideast policymaking is to draw moral equivalences between the Palestinians and Israel? Who believes that being politically-correct beats being truly correct? Who blames everything on the catchall culprits of the white and the wealthy, while simultaneously nominating candidates who are – you guessed it – white and wealthy? Who is better at making excuses for terror than at fighting it? A party that associates itself with the far-left wingnuts and makes no apologies for that?

But then, while Bush’s Mideast policies have been sounder, most of the rest of his policies have been disasters. Could I ever really vote for a party who believes that the “right to bear arms” supersedes the rights of people not to get shot? Who pushes for Christian prayer in schools, wants to limit a woman’s right to choose, and thinks that gay people don’t really deserve all the same rights as the rest of us? A party who has made an utter mess of the economy and used foreign policy to distract people from the fact that they don’t have jobs? A party who invaded Iraq under false pretences, because no matter how much I might think that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, there’s no denying that Bush didn’t exactly go about it in the best way. A party who associates itself with the far right wingnuts and makes no apologies for that?

No, the either-or choice is really no choice at all. I honestly think I might be tempted, if I were American, to shirk my right to vote and waste it on someone like Mickey Mouse.

Mud-slinging

Second, like most elections, including our last Canadian one, this has devolved from a debate of ideas into an attack of characters. The Bush team has been merrily attacking Kerry’s Vietnam record, and then dissociating itself from the attacks. The Kerry team has been adopting some of the Bush-is-Hitler crowd to do its dirty work. The personal smears, low blows, and mudslinging are turning off the average American from politics, and it just gets worse every election.

People bemoan the fact that nobody votes, but they never stop to wonder why. I think a lot more people would get involved in politics if it was truly about platforms and ideas. But people are sick of unflattering photos of candidates’ wives, attacks on personal history, or flinging of insults. They’re tired of corruption. And they’re annoyed because candidates keep asking for their votes on the basis that they’re “not as bad” as the other guy. I’m sorry, but I just don’t think that’s good enough anymore. And neither should most people. If it’s true that populations get the government that they deserve, then it’s time for Americans to demand better from their politicians.

Annoying celebrities

From Arnie to Dixie, and from the Boss to Britney, celebrities seem to be increasingly speaking out – or spewing – their political views to anyone who is willing to listen. Arnold Schwarzenegger is, at least, an actual politician, and has the votes and the office to prove it.

But most celebrities are not politicians, nor should they be. Many form their political views in the same way that they get their fashion sense. I’m starting to think that Alice Cooper has a good point:

If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons.

Cooper, incidentally, is a Republican.

Polarization

Finally, as I’ve noticed on recent trips to the US, the population seems more polarized than ever at the moment. Whoever wins in November is going to piss off half the population, and it will probably be even tougher to reunite the country than it was in 2000. People on the left blame Bush for everything that’s wrong in their lives, and people on the right think that Kerry will make everything go wrong in theirs. It’s easy to get caught up in partisanship; it will be much tougher to build bridges across that divide and remind people that, left or right, they’re all Americans.

In a way, the polarization reminds me of 1995 in Quebec. Federalists and separatists alike maligned, smeared, and hated each other so much that most of us wondered if the province would ever recover. We did, of course. Eventually we realized that we could all just agree to disagree and that the other side didn’t have horns growing out of their heads. But the next referendum will probably divide us all over again. And that’s some of what I see happening in the States.

That’s the saddest part of all. Because in such a bitterly divided election, no matter who wins, everyone loses.

I haven’t done this in a while, and I think some of my fave bloggers are feeling neglected. Not that they care about the 2 hits they’ll get from these links, but hey, I think they’re great reads… so you should too

Lynn is not impressed by Arafat’s mea culpa and neither is Meryl. Neither am I, for that matter. Arafat’s line about how “even the prophets made mistakes” sounds more like an egotistical attempt for Arafat to compare himself to a prophet than anything else. I guess megalomania comes with the territory for dictators. Whatever.

LGF has the Muslim self-congratulations for vote influence in Canada, which is a logical follow-up to some of what I posted before the election.

Damian has some thoughts about the backlash against Springsteen for participating in the concerts for John Kerry. I think he nails the issue – it’s silly to boycott all celebs for their political views unless they’re extreme. But if people want to boycott, or to criticize, that’s part of freedom of speech as well. Personally I wish celebs would butt out of politics and stick to their areas of expertise, but I know that’s about as likely to happen as peace in the middle east.

And finally, a shout-out to the newest link on my blogroll, Autonomous Source. Bruce is a blogger from right here in Quebec, and definately worth a read.

Genealogy buffs claim that Bush and Kerry are cousins.