||[Oct. 8th, 2004|11:32 pm]
I'm not going to comment on the debates because side-by-side press conferences aren't interesting to talk about, nor a good judge of who would a good president. (That said, although Bush had a decent showing this time compared to the first debate, I do think that Kerry had a stronger presentation both times. I'm just disapointed that such antics have such a strong sway on people's opinions.)|
Instead, I leave you with a Daily Show quote from a few nights ago because it really amused me:
"Apparantly there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and their capabilities had been degraded and they pretty much stopped trying anything back in '98. Both the President and Vice President came out today in response to the findings and said that they clearly justified the invasion of Iraq. So... uh... Some people look at a glass and see it as half full.... and other people look at a glass and say that it's a dragon."
PS. For those of you who haven't heard, Poland is leaving. Such sorrow.
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