Facts? Bush didn’t present much by way of facts. He presented feelings and emotion and how hard some people in the administration work. Apparently being the president is a hard job and he felt that telling this to us was a good use of his time.
RSU,
“This is Bush’s latest argument, and I agree – it sounds great. Unfortunately, however, I believe it’s false. Congress doesn’t get the same briefings or access to the same intelligence that the President receives.”
Never? Are you sure?
“I agree, Kucinich is the man.”
Yikes. Seriously? The man that wants to replace the Department of Defense with the Department of Peace? I’d probably vote for Nader before I’d vote for Kucinich.
“I think he cleared his position up in the debates. He said Sadaam was/could have been a threat, but he wouldn’t have dealth with him the way Bush has.
He also thought the timing was bad – he essentially said that resources should not have been diverted from the real threat - terrorists.”
None of this I disagree with - but if Kerry felt that way, that Iraq needed more diplomacy and a military action at the time would have been too much a strain from our going after terrorists in Afghanistan, then he should not have voted to authorize an unambiguous war resolution.
Those who voted knew exactly what they were voting for. If Kerry held the opinions you suggest he does, then he needs to explain why he voted ‘aye’ on the Resolution. Kucinich didn’t - and he believed exactly as you say Kerry does. Why the vote?
“This is clearly a rhetorical question that is more of an attempt to use opinions about Bush like my own against supporters of Kerry. It’s fallacious.”
It’s not fallacious. Is it honestly a good idea to hire someone who claims he was duped by a moron? Rhetorical, perhaps, although one could answer it - fallacious, no.
Vroom,
Sure Bush presented facts. Both candidates threw out a couple of stats.
But Bush absolutely talked about feelings and emotions. I think he understands this is not the kind of election we had on 2000, where candidates niggled over how a surplus should be spent and what kind of after-school program the feds should embark on.
The election of 2004 - as Bush realizes - will be a ‘values’ election. It won’t be about good presentation or photo-ops, although certainly neither candidate can afford to just flop in terms of image or presentation.
It’ll be about ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’. It’ll be about identifying with which candidate shares your view of the world, not a pie chart.
Bush’s overemphasizing the ‘hard work’ aspect was not eloquent or sharp, but it wasn’t a mistake. He was saying that it takes a realist, one equipped to persevere when no choice looks like a sure thing, to accomplish the goals he has, not a utopian. He didn’t do a good job of explaining it, but it was a valid point to hammer home.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Ross,
I apologize.
[/quote]
No apology necessary. I appreciate it, though.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Actually, Jeff makes a very good point. It’s one that I made the day after the debate. That is: Just because one candidate is not as articulate as his opponent does not automatically make his points invalid! One logically has nothing to do with the other. There are plenty of people on this forum who always make great points, but perhaps make spelling errors. Shoul that disqualify them?
[/quote]
ZEB, JeffR,
You highlight a legitimate distinction.
Of course public speaking ability is not far from the first criterion for worthiness of a candidate to be president (although the President’s public speaking abilities are extremely important, since he is the face our nation shows to the rest of the world).
However, I wasn’t trying to point out the obvious - that Bush avoided an open-floor debate because he is a bad public speaker. I suggested that Bush avoided the open floor debate because he does not know how to practice original thinking about political things.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Our finest President ever, Lincoln, was said to have a high-pitched voice. He was also uncouth in his appearance and body habits. I’ll bet a 2004 Lincoln, would have been very hesitant to make many T.V. appearances.
[/quote]
I doubt the man who did not fear to stand against the majority of his fellow Congressmen in voting time and time again would have feared the camera, but for argument’s sake, I’ll grant the point, and make one of my own: The genius of Lincoln’s speeches proves beyond a shadow of a doubt his ability to think critically about his job: Running the United States of America. I have no such reason to believe that Bush knows how to be President. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I conclude that Bush’s hesitance to engage in open-floor debate indicates that he is incapable of responding in an instant to a political problem. That’s not the kind of man I want sitting in my Oval Office.
I conclude that Bush’s hesitance to engage in open-floor debate indicates that he is incapable of responding in an instant to a political problem. That’s not the kind of man I want sitting in my Oval Office.[/quote]
Ross:
That is precisely the sort of man I want leading our country!
There are virtually no decisions that the President must act on in an “instant”. I want our President to question and ponder a major move before taking it. I want our President to have the best advisors in the world (which President Bush has). And I want our President to meet with them and take advice from them.
President Bush is such a President!
Naturally, public speaking is a fine attribute. I give John Kerry credit for his speaking ability. I also think you will see President Bush put in a far better performance in the second debate (I have my own theory on this). However, public speaking is not the number one criteria to be President. I feel that actually having core beliefs is far more important. John Kerry has few core beliefs, in my opinion, and the ones that he has, I don’t much care for!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I feel that actually having core beliefs is far more important.
[/quote]
ZEB,
'Having a belief' should not be the criterion for the office of the presidency. A belief is an opinion that a certain thing is the case. It is, in its essence, inferior to actual knowledge - certainty that a certain things is the case. A state that makes belief, rather than wisdom, the criteria of its actions, puts what it finds pleasant at the moment before what it knows to be right for all time. Is this not a matter for concern?
Mr. Hunt,
“A state that makes belief, rather than wisdom, the criteria of its actions, puts what it finds pleasant at the moment before what it knows to be right for all time. Is this not a matter for concern?”
Isn’t this the exact opposite of what Bush’s critics suggest?
The main gripe, as I hear it, is that Bush clings to belief in defiance of ‘what is pleasant at the moment’, ie, the democratic will of the people. Liberals complain that Bush won’t listen to what is pleasant at the moment - his damn beliefs keep getting in the way.
Bush’s contentions is that he followed his beliefs - a moral compass - regardless of what fads and trends suggest.
What you suggest, Mr. Hunt is backwards. It is a belief that stands against the tide of whimsical trend, not the other way around.
Of course, we all want beliefs to be based in reason and wisdom.
But having a set of values is a higher priority than knowledge. Knowledge is information, what do you do with that information? What decisions do you make?
Absent your beliefs, knowledge is useless.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
"It’ll be about ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’. It’ll be about identifying with which candidate shares your view of the world, not a pie chart. "[/quote]
And this is what scares me about this coming election. Every human with the ability to open their mouth will be allowed to enter that voting booth with many basing this on emotion (some going as far as to vote for a certain candidate because his accent matches that of their late-husband, Billy-Bob or some other name just as country). I’m sorry, but emotion is what had most of America rushing to war before the dust even settled. The country wanted revenge and accepted what it was told about who did it and why. The scene has changed slightly in the past 3 years and I hope that no one with any common sense is basing their selection on pure emotion.
Ross:
Unfortunately, none of us has the inherent true wisdom of which you write. However, obtaining the “actual knowledge” can be done while holding true to your core beliefs. I prefer someone that is bright and has strong core beliefs. At least this way I know (or can predict within reason) what he will do when faced with the various challenges of the office. This also sends a clear message to our friends and foes alike!
Having core beliefs is an outstanding characteristic for all of us to have. If each of us changes our mind daily about important matters, we get nothing done.
If as a politician you change your beliefs with the latest political poll that is not the type of leadership that I can have faith in.
I’ll take President Bush any day over someone who attempts to hold two opposing views at the same time.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Having core beliefs is an outstanding characteristic for all of us to have. If each of us changes our mind daily about important matters, we get nothing done.
[/quote]
That was cute. I can come up with cute statements as well, however. If your beliefs ever get in the way of changing environments, facts, and new information, then you are left behind as the rest of the world moves forward. There are people who believed that the sun circled the Earth and that every time you yawned, you allowed an evil spirit the opportunity to enter your body (why it is ancient courtesy to cover your mouth when you yawn). If all of these “beliefs” were held on to simply because of stubborn inability to pay attention to changing facts and the responding world, we would still be afraid to sale ships off the edge of the Earth. I would hope any true leader would have the ability to take facts and NEW evidence and make new ideas and plans based on them. Anyone so stuck in “belief” to not do this is not worthy of being a leader of an entire country.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
"It’ll be about ‘feelings’ and ‘emotions’. It’ll be about identifying with which candidate shares your view of the world, not a pie chart. "
And this is what scares me about this coming election. Every human with the ability to open their mouth will be allowed to enter that voting booth with many basing this on emotion… emotion is what had most of America rushing to war before the dust even settled… I hope that no one with any common sense is basing their selection on pure emotion. [/quote]
Amen.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What you suggest, Mr. Hunt is backwards. It is a belief that stands against the tide of whimsical trend, not the other way around.
Of course, we all want beliefs to be based in reason and wisdom.
But having a set of values is a higher priority than knowledge. Knowledge is information, what do you do with that information? What decisions do you make?
Absent your beliefs, knowledge is useless.[/quote]
thunderbolt23,
I think we have different understandings of belief of reason.
From your post, it seemed to me that you are of the opinion that reason is a means that can be employed to the furthering the ends of passions (by all means do correct me if I got this wrong), and that those ends are arbitrarily selected (that is, they are not KNOWN to be good, but are only BELIEVED to be good).
I say that 'beliefs,' which you set in contrast to 'whims' (or, desires) are merely whims that are held by many people in common. Assuming that these beliefs have not been arrived at by a process of reason, the only cause one has to do believe them is that 'everybody does.'
Look around you; the results of a soceity founded upon the common pursuit of desires are ubiquitous and abhorrent. T-Nation regularly bewails the effeminacy of the nation at large. The cause of this effeminacy is the willingness to equate what seems good with what IS.
I maintain that Reason must not be used as a mere means to the ends dictated at random by the passions. It must be the means of FINDING OUT the true ends of one's activity, including political activity.
In context: The President appeals to the popular belief that belief is good in itself. We ought to KNOW better.
Professor:
Never stated that “core beliefs” should prevent you from reevaluating any particular position given new information.
In context: The President appeals to the popular belief that belief is good in itself. We ought to KNOW better.[/quote]
Well…I think when you are dealing with cut throat terrorist types showing a resolute “belief” that we will prevail no matter what is a good thing. However, you make a very good point otherwise.
Pro X,
There was no rush to war in Iraq. The US and UK had been at war with Saddam for 12 years. A long-term diplomacy had reached failure. Suggesting that Iraq was ‘rush to war’ is not accurate in light of the full facts. The recent Iraq war was essentially a solution to the first Gulf War.
Ross Hunt,
“reason is a means that can be employed to the furthering the ends of passions (by all means do correct me if I got this wrong), and that those ends are arbitrarily selected (that is, they are not KNOWN to be good, but are only BELIEVED to be good).”
Depends on what you mean by ‘arbitrarily.’ I don’t subscribe to the notion that all beliefs carry the same water or are on the same playing field.
Values, ie, feelings, aren’t completely divorced from reason. Moreover, selecting ends - in simpler terms - means making decisions.
“I say that ‘beliefs,’ which you set in contrast to ‘whims’ (or, desires) are merely whims that are held by many people in common.”
That is a serious devaluation of the concept of beliefs, and if you thought were true, you wouldn’t vote for any candidate, anywhere. Neither Presidential candidate is void of value and belief based decisionmaking.
And, despite your devaluation of beliefs, you’ll note that ‘whims held by many people in common’ is the form of government we, in this modern age, find to be the most intelligent, practical, and humane.
“Assuming that these beliefs have not been arrived at by a process of reason, the only cause one has to do believe them is that ‘everybody does.’”
Decisions to go to war in Iraq were based on reason. Decisions not to go into Iraq were based on reason. You seem to worship at this altar of ‘reason’ and yet there is no tablets-from-the-mountain by which you can be so sure. There’s no monopoly on reason. I can make a reasonable argument for both waging war in Iraq and not waging war in Iraq. The difference maker in your decision to go to war or not is your set of values.
More later.
Kerry did explain this. He stated that the Bush administration promised that there would not be a rush to war.
Given that promise, most people agreed in good conscious to give the president the authority requested. The president then ignored his promises and rushed to war.
On another front, funny that when I posted some statements based on emotion I was heavily criticized in these forums. Strange that emotions are a great tool when they reflect your own viewpoint but not when they conflict with it.
There needs to be more substance than nice sounding catch-phrases and emotional blather coming from the president. He just doesn’t have it.
If we continue to see similar debating styles in the future, I’m going to predict an upset. I think Kerry will win if he continues to outperform Bush during the upcoming debates.
Redefeat Bush… 
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Pro X,
There was no rush to war in Iraq. The US and UK had been at war with Saddam for 12 years. A long-term diplomacy had reached failure. Suggesting that Iraq was ‘rush to war’ is not accurate in light of the full facts. The recent Iraq war was essentially a solution to the first Gulf War.
.[/quote]
So, by writing this, you are saying that the US going to war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and that we would have gone to war at the exact same time we did had their been no Trade center incident? You are saying that our current president didn’t use the tragedy as momentum to get more of America to stand behind him in that effort? Please, inform me about how we would have lost over 1,000 troops in Iraq had we not based this on WMD’s and WTC correlations drawn to us by the current administration.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor:
Never stated that “core beliefs” should prevent you from reevaluating any particular position given new information.
[/quote]
Of course you didn’t. What you did do was imply that one can not have core beliefs if they look at a situation differently than they did originally.
Professor:
Allow me to clear this up for you. I don’t think that someone can have true core beliefs when they continue to waffle, repeatedly change their mind and usually end up playing both sides from the middle. That is what Sen. Kerry appears to be doing.
Those are not the actions of a leader. A leader must rally the group. A leader inspires by his convictions. At this point in time I am not sure that John Kerry has very strong convictions about anything…wrothwhile.
He is a very good speaker…and that has helped him a great deal. Please don’t confuse presentation with authenticity!
Pro X,
“So, by writing this, you are saying that the US going to war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and that we would have gone to war at the exact same time we did had their been no Trade center incident?”
Nope. You leap. Taking on Saddam had everything to do with what happened on 9/11. We should have dealt with Saddam a long time ago, but we were lazy and content, drunk on the idea that we were invulnerable and that containment of a rogue like Saddam was perfectly fine as long as everyone’s stocks were going up and we were getting reality TV. The attack of 9/11 changed that, changed our priorities. We realized that old strategies were ineffective if we were going to tackle this fight against Islamism.
“You are saying that our current president didn’t use the tragedy as momentum to get more of America to stand behind him in that effort?”
You suggest that the attack of 9/11 was a tool of political strategy for Bush to exploit. Nonsense. That’s a cynical view I don’t subscribe to. He did use it in the sense that he is trying to get the message out that he ‘gets it’, and he’s the right man to engage this challenge.
“Please, inform me about how we would have lost over 1,000 troops in Iraq had we not based this on WMD’s and WTC correlations drawn to us by the current administration.”
Huh?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Professor:
Allow me to clear this up for you. I don’t think that someone can have true core beliefs when they continue to waffle, repeatedly change their mind and usually end up playing both sides from the middle. That is what Sen. Kerry appears to be doing.[/quote]
Be specific. What exactly did he waffle on? Don’t repeat the same rhetoric on campaign ads. You accuse Kerry of having no morals and values as you obviously believe that Bush nearly owns the patents on them. You could at least be direct about the accusations.