Easy Pickings for Kerry
Well, I didn't see the whole debate because I had other responsibilities, but the little I saw reminded me of when I worked at Home Depot--more on that analogy in a bit.
It is an axiom of life that it is way easier to criticize than it is to do something yourself (if it isn't an axiom, it should be).
John Kerry will probably be said to have won this debate handily and that is at least partly owed to the truth of my little axiom. You see, Kerry had the advantage of being able to slam everything Bush has done as President--slamming is easy since it's something we all learn in junior high.
The reason this reminds me of Home Depot is because whenever somebody takes over a department they have a field day ripping everything the previous supervisor did. The old boss could have been God himself and there would still be disparaging remarks about the way He ran things.
How often at your place of employment have you heard these statements from the new guy on the job: "I don't know what so-and-so was thinking, I have to clean up his mess before I can accomplish anything here," or "Things are going to be different. I can't believe what was going on here before I arrived."
Kerry is the potential new guy and had the opportunity tonight to do the same thing anybody does when he wants to make himself look good--make fun of the other guy. I am not saying that we should discount Kerry's effort because of this, I just thought it is much easier to win a debate when you are the one who is making promises rather than the one who is defending reality.
5 comments:
easy pickings!! Not because he is the new guy but because George Bush came across as a complete idiot. Watch the entire debate and then tell me if you dont believe that George would have made anyone look good with his behavior.
You may be right, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to listen to such fruitless rhetoric. If you are already predisposed to support one guy over the other, nothing anyone can say will change your mind. That goes for me too. Kerry supporters think he speaks the truth and Bush supporter think he does. Anyone who is not sure will most likely go with whatever spin the media puts on it.
"fruitless rhetoric" ??????? If you only want opinions that agree with your own what is the use of blogging?
Perhaps it was unclear what I meant by "fruitless rhetoric". By fruitless I mean something that does not produce something useful. To me two people "debating" from their own entrenched positions are a waste of time. Bush is not ever going to stop in the middle of the debate and declare that, by golly, Kerry has some good points that deserve consideration.
Likewise, I don't think viewers of such a contest are going to change their minds from what the participants have to say. However,if they are truely undecided, they may be persuaded to one side or the other. Since both sides are presenting their "facts" and ideas in the most positive light possible, I shudder to think that someone could decide who has the best plan for our country based on such a spectacle.
I guess I misunderstood your feelings about the debate since you wrote 6 paragraphs explaining that John Kerry didnt "win" the debate because he debated his side better, but because he was the new guy. I agree that people dont usually change their minds about which candidate to vote for by watching the debate. What I think is helpful is people getting fired up about the issues and becoming motivated to vote. Everyone always complains that the campaigns never get to the meat of the issues and all you get are sounds bites. The debate gives these people a chance to hear the issues and confirm their previously held beliefs.
That being said, republicans dont need to justify George Bushes behavoir, nor do they need to make up excuses why Kerry was the "perceived" winner.
Post a Comment