Perusing through Andrew Sullivan’s blog as of late, one would get the distinct impression that this is an honest and straight-forward individual that would never permit mere ideology to stain his opinions on a slew of subjects. This proverbial third person might also believe that while there has always existed a schism of sorts between Sully and the Bushies over issues such as fiscal responsibility, it was the Republican embrace of the FMA that really got his panties in a twist. This is not to suggest that everyone should prime voting issues identically, but simply to suggest that those that regularly read his opinions on foreign policy, which wreaks of already-debunked neo-conservative methodology, and the use of military force might be well-served to digest a bottle of Tums prior to this rather risky endeavor.

Let’s recap. Wednesday, March 26, 2003:

My harping on this theme is not simply media criticism. It’s war analysis. Remember one of the key elements, we’re finding out, in this battle is the willingness of the Iraqi people to stand up to the Saddamite remnants. That willingness depends, in part, on their confidence that the allies are making progress. What the BBC is able to do, by broadcasting directly to these people, is to keep the Iraqi people’s morale as far down as possible, thereby helping to make the war more bloody, thereby helping discredit it in retrospect. If you assume that almost all these reporters and editors are anti-war, this BBC strategy makes sense. They’re a military player. And they are objectively pro-Saddam.

Why does the BBC hate America and freedom? Sullivan illuminates us with more.

Read the rest of this entry »

Challengers always have the more difficult task in presidential debates. I’ve been watching these events with great interest going back to the Reagan-Mondale showdown of 1984. John Kerry did more than just hold his own against George W. Bush. The senator took charge early on and defined the terms of the debate. It clearly was a referendum on the failed Iraq strategy perused by this president. Kerry offered a foreign policy vision that was more engaged and energetic than the Bush go-it-alone doctrine. My sense is that voters will respond well to his message. There was no knockout ala the Benson–Quayle 1988 debate (which would have been nice). But I think there is no question that John Kerry gave a much needed lift to his campaign.

There was more both candidates could have offered. I appreciated the questions on Darfur and Russia. Sadly, the ongoing genocide in Darfur has been largely overlooked during the campaign. Check out the White House web site and search for the name Darfur. A total of 40 possible entries on the crisis show up. Gay marriage: 848. This president hasn’t used his office to address the difficult issues. Instead he has focused on dividing the American people for political purposes. It was unfortunate that neither candidate was able to offer a fuller and richer debate on issues outside of Iraq and North Korea.

Although a transcript is yet to be available, and public opinion has yet to solidify, I think it is safe to say that John Kerry won. Despite my well-founded belief that Kerry would be timid, long-winded, and somewhat ineffective, he projected particularly well to me in my solitary confinement dorm room. Good posture, effective pauses, non-staccato and connected answers, and most importantly–a healthy and well-defined complexion.

On the other hand, Bush seemed on the ball in the middle 10-15 minutes of the first half hour (computer that however you wish), but the fact that his delivery was rather muted, juvenile, and at times incoherent made his message ineffective. If I were a typical Joe Public undecided voter watching at home, it would not be irrational to turn away from the television everytime Bush spoke, for the sake of cleaning out the plumbing.

On the issues, Bush’s strongest point, which he used rather sparingly, was Kerry’s nay-vote on the $87 billion supplemental for our troops and the reconstruction. Mentioning it only a handful of times, the utilization was nothing like that which was present in the plethora of attack ads chastising the Senator for his vote. Apparently, without an ominous voiceover and large block text flooding the screen, Bush’s flip-flop message is very futile. While effective in defining Kerry’s persona and introducing America to the challenger, they appeared to be misplaced in the context of his statements on the issues.

At other points, Bush mentioned portions of Kerry’s record and his prior statements in regards to national security, or Iraq in a guided effort to chide his lack of consistency. The problem, however, was that he did not qualify his statements, or elucidate the extent to which what he was saying was important with any rhetorical tools, but rather stood there after repeating a campaign commercial with his hand on his hip and the other in the air, going: “Like, Duh.”

Read the rest of this entry »