that debate was the most meaningless piece of crap ever. they just took the questions and went on their own little tangents that had little to do with the actual question. bush trying not to scowl is almost more annoying than bush scowling. kerry-almost-smurck look is also really annoying. god, both these guys are hard to watch. That debate will have zero impact on the election. Bush will settle back to pre debate #1 numbers and then debate #3 is the economy & social issues, but as interesting that could be, we all know Bush success and failure tracks almost exactly with people's feelings on Iraq. So, I cant see even debate #3 meaning much.
why can't we ever have third party candidates at these debates...oh that's right because our system presents us with the exercise of meaningless choices in the attempt to convince us we are free. hogwash, all of it I tells ya.
that debate was the most meaningless piece of crap ever. they just took the questions and went on their own little tangents that had little to do with the actual question.
Welcome to American politics. And I'm not entirely sure that this debate will have any effects on the election, because hey, I missed my bus and therefore spent it drunk as a skunk on someone's sofa as Boondock Saints played in the background. The last debate, however, DID have a dramatic effect on the poll standings, with Kerry bursting the bubble that Bush had built after the convention.
And please - don't kid yourself into believing that a 3rd party candidate would change the presentation of politics during an election campaign. The third parties realize that there is no possibility for them to be elected w/o adopting the same language that has been established by the dems and the repubs, so the second that they're permitted to participate in a campaign as full equals, they will act in exactly the same way to increase they're "legitimacy" w/in the system. As much as I like the idea of adding parties to add diversity of views, the meaningless campaign language that we are being treated to with Bush and Kerry will continue so long as the system persists.
Finally, as someone who spends all of his time reading about the USSR, I'm not going to complain too much about our seemingly similar candidates. Underneath the empty rhetoric, there are serious differences between the candidates, and I thank the maker every day for my grandpop's decision to get the hell out of Lithuania when he had the chance in order to head over to Philly. It is nice to have a choice instead of having a few men with NO real differences dangled before you.
2004-10-08 09:54 pm (UTC)
When you say "Lithuania", I'm sure you meant to say "Russia". I'll forgive this slip of tounge this time, Michael, but in the future I must warn you that deception will not be permitted in my weblog. ;-)
You are such a fuckface :)
third party guys know they have no chance, thus can be goofier and more outspoken...that's why I want them at the debates. They knowledge that they have no chance frees them to discuss issue more directly, even if it means pissing people off
of course the US is better than the old USSR...much like Churchill's quip America is the worst country, except for all the others. western europe's unemployment rate is ridiculously high in most cases and I would thus always say US > western europe as a place to live. However, that doesnt mean I should prefer our winner take allish election system over the european systems where third parties can actually matter.
The flip side of that, you know, is that the Austrians elected a neo-Nazi a few years back.
that's a fair point..or that france had someone that made pat buchanan look liberal running against chirac a few years ago. Basically, I think the libertarians are a legitimate party with novel, yet not psycho, ideas and I would like to see them get more attention....they are in stark contrast to both parties brutal spending policies. even republicans have become pretty much big government...at least Bush has. I think Libertarians would be interesting because civil rights advocates who can't stomach kerry would like him and fiscally responsible, small government republicans would too...but the two big parties hate each other so much that they wouldnt take a chance and vote for the third guy because they rather have their guy, who they may disagree with on 3 issues win than the other big party guy, whom they see as satan with a tie.
You know, it's a shame that the libertarian economic ethos is lunacy, because I really like their social program, being the pro-2nd amendment, pro-choice type of guy that I am. But I'm sorry - the whole philosophy of "let's trust big business to do what's best for the country" is pure idiocy, particularly in the post-Enron era. Moreover, if Reagan's ideology of neoliberal economics was really practical, I'm pretty sure that Reagan would have done it himself LOL Ahhh well...
yeah ecnomically they are living in the 1920's....however the small government idea I like...the getting rid of the useless drug war I like....the live and let live social program I like...I think maybe what they should do is figure out a way to approve of a mixed economic system as opposed to their love of pure capitalism...and yet still hold true to small government. is that possible? I think so...I think efficiant in the areas in needs to control, yet still small is possible, at least in theory.
Yeah, we're going to disagree on this, because in terms of economics, I'm pretty much a socialist. LOL
I don't think you're crazy or anything. I see the appeal behind small government. I just don't buy it, myself.
The other side of the coin is that since the 3rd party candidates have no chance, they are going to talk like their nuts in order to attract attention for them and their cause. For instance, I watched the acceptance speech of the guy that the Greens were going to run instead of Nader (you know, I totally forget his name, and I'm not even sure they're running him anymore). I agree with several of the Green Party principles, but this guy wasn't even talking about things like the environment, progressive electoral reform, or whatever. He was just ranting and raving and acting like a lunatic in order to gain attention for his candidacy and his party. Is this helpful? I don't really think so. I think that them being goofy just wastes our time and prevents the other candidates from speaking about real issues, as they have to sit there and address all of the crazy crap that comes out of the 3rd party members mouth.
That said, I'm all about incorporating more parties into the system. The thing you need to realize is that once we regulate the system by installing Euro style spending caps and giving the candidates a set amount of air time for tv ads, the marginalized party crazy talk will end, because the crazy parties are going to adopt the language of the other parties while moderating their tone, as they try to appeal to the most conservative population in the Western world. It's sad, but if/when these parties are wholeheartedly allowed to join the system, you will see their moderation and their move to the middle to join the Dems and the Repubs.
2004-10-08 09:52 pm (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It's a pointless circus act, seeing which monkey can dance for the most peanuts. The only thing that would make a debate useful would be if the moderator was extremely talented and knowledgeable, was able to keep them on point, and asked interesting, difficult questions. (I think the dumbest question I ever heard was the one from the VP debate when you couldn't say "George Bush" or "John Kerry" in the answer.)
I liked this debate slightly more than the first one because I thought the questions were slightly more interesting. However, I am still annoyed that they prescreened the questions and the audience.
The reason why there isn't a third canidate in the debates is because the Democratic and Republican parties own the Commission on Presidential Debates. Their house, their rules, ya know?
I really don't understand why third parties keep on sending up canidates for president instead of building up their party and trying to get seats in congress. Even if a third party canidate hypothetically won Presidency, they wouldn't be able to do anything since congress will just stonewall them. This is especially true if Republicans and Democrats are nearly as similar as third parties say they are.
(Don't get me wrong. I think more parties, in theory, is a great idea. However, I think it would be better if the parties started off building their base and then focusing their efforts exclusively on state government and Congress offices.)
because they want to see how much % of the popular vote they can garner to get a feel of which states to run congressional candidates in strongly. It's also to get more notice by the general public. Sure, only 4-5% of the public knows Bednarik is running for the Libertarians, but thats more than the % of people in PA who know that Betsy Summers is running against Specter and Hoeffel.
president still has veto power and power to command the military and the power to appoint supreme court justices and making up the cabinent. although congress can override almost all of those...or not agree to declare war. However, those are still big deals...because he can nominate a judge and then if the public likes him/her but the congress doesn't appoint them because of political angles, the public can vote against his or her congressmen if that was an important issue to them. Plus, the whole idea of the bully pulpit. Even a president with a high % opposition congress like Truman's second term always got his point across to the public....even if they didnt like what they heard