![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockTonight my house (15/16 people, the Public Affairs Theme House) and the Cesar Chavez Theme House went over to the Delta Delta Delta sorority house to eat food and watch the last debate with three Political Science professors. A local news team (reporter and camera guy) also watched with us and filmed us during the debate and afterward when we had a group discussion.
Overall, I felt George Bush had better delivery (excepting that "Ex-a-ger-a-tion" comment) than he has in the previous two, although Kerry still exhibited a stronger and more passionate delivery than Bush. I think this debate had no clear winner because the candidates both eventually came down to "he said / she said" and neither had any obvious-to-pick-on errors like Bush's face-making in the first and second debate, so who "won" is likely to be dependent on who you generally liked better. Also, I would say that in general this debate did not have a winner simply because it wasn't really a contest the way traditional debating is, just two people holding "simultaneous press conferences" as one of the professors called it.
There are three things I'd really like to talk about though, and I'll focus on those and leave the rest. The first is a more humorous one, and will appeal to many West Wing fans out there. In the season 2 premier of The West Wing there is a flashback to Bartlet in his days of running for office, and his campaign advisors at the time are suggesting that Bartlet refer to the guy he's running against as "my opponent" instead of by the guy's name and title, on the reasoning that repeating the guys name only means more free coverage for him. Bartlet firmly disagreed and said he thought referring to him as "my opponent" made him sound stupid, and like he couldn't remember the man's name.
It's odd to think of that, but when I was watching tonight I noticed it over and over. George Bush continually referred to Kerry as "my opponent" and never "Senator Kerry" or "John Kerry." Kerry repetitively referred to Bush as "the president" or "our current president," which makes sense because that's the man's title and he holds the highest office in the country-- he should be reffered to as the president and not by his name or "my opponent." However, I think George Bush could have given Kerry the same courtesy and referred to him as "Senator Kerry." It just sounds more professional, and like you know the man's name.
Secondly, I appreciated to highest degree Kerry's candidness with regards to women's freedom of choice, and his belief that it is fundamentally wrong to impose his religious beliefs on other Americans. I wish George Bush would have been equally candid-- the man couldn't even come out and say "I would like to end all abortions because I believe they are fundamentally wrong." Rather he said he would work to "reduce the number." That's half-assed, especially considering anyone with a brain who gets even the smallest amount of news already knows Bush's views on that. It wouldn't have hurt him to just come out and say it, and it would have allowed Bush to express the same amount of passion and integrity on the topic as Kerry did for his own view. By waffling, Bush just looked less resolute in his own stance.
Thirdly, I took one part of Bush's statements very personally tonight. I have been angry, and indignant, and unbelieving before when I've heard him speak (I've even yelled at the tv once or twice), but never did a statement he's made have such a deep emotional reaction in me. I almost wanted to cry, because for one minute I was so angry.
When Bush was asked a very specific, direct question about what he would say to a person whose job has been outsourced, he responded with a length comment about how he would promise that person help in getting an education: he would tell him to go to community college, to prepare himself for competing in jobs in the 21st century. Bush even brought up the No Child Left Behind Act again, focusing on how education would solve outsourcing.
What made me so damn, damn angry in that moment was that this man completely missed the point, that "higher-educated" jobs were being outsourced as much as "lower-educated" jobs, and that a man who has just lost his job because the same job was cheaper labor in another country obviously already had the education required for that job, or he never would have had the job to lose it in the first place. He or she did not lose that job because they were undereducated, but because the labor is cheaper overseas.
I was deeply, deeply offended that he assumed the people who are being affected by this are people who, in his view, obviously haven't educated themselves enough, and that if they were properly educated they wouldn't have lost that job. My father works in the tech industry, and he has been unemployed for the last two years, only recently finding work again this August. He lost his job due to the Hewlett Packard / Compaq merger, not outsourcing, but I know that outsourcing added to the economic environment that made finding a new job these last few years so incredibly difficult. My mother, who works as an escrow officer in the high-end commercial real estate field (as in office buildings not houses), has also had colleagues affected by outsourcing, and she's watched their jobs disappear, and she's now had to work with people in foreign countries more often than ever before.
My father has a four year degree; my mother has a two year degree. They both worked hard to educate themselves and bring themselves to where they are by now in their respective careers. To have the president tell me that if one of them lost their jobs to outsourcing that they should educate themselves was so incredibly, insulting to me. The condescension in that statement, the assumption that it's the fault of the employee that his employer can get cheaper labor oversees, the assumption that only the people who get cut are people who must have, somehow, not already tried their hardest and worked as long as they needed to get that job-- it is such an insult. It means he doesn't understand outsourcing, it means he doesn't understand the people it's affecting, it means he doesn't realize the range of affect it has in all job fields (considering people who have already been lucky enough to get a "good education" by normal American standards have to get more education to compete?) and that level of education does not protect you from outsource, and he assumes that the only people who are affected are affected because it's their fault.
I was so furious, so insulted in that moment that I wanted to cry. I didn't want to scream, I just wanted to cry because I was that angry.
George Bush, if ever you were to have, by some miracle been able to win me to your side despite all the other disagreements I have with you, in that two minute response to a single, simple question, you lost me forever. You don't know what you're talking about, you didn't understand the question you were asked, and your condescending assumptions of the people you propose to help and guide and lead reveals how little in touch you are with all of us.
I was already going to vote against him for a million other reasons, for wars and for civil rights and for much more noble causes, but it took a simple economic question for him to slip and show me that it's not just what positions he takes that I have to worry about-- he really doesn't understand the issues beyond the most surface level, and he is arrogant.
I am glad the debates are over. I don't want to look at that condescending assfuck and hear him claim that he knows where I'm coming from or he understands me ever again.
Overall, I felt George Bush had better delivery (excepting that "Ex-a-ger-a-tion" comment) than he has in the previous two, although Kerry still exhibited a stronger and more passionate delivery than Bush. I think this debate had no clear winner because the candidates both eventually came down to "he said / she said" and neither had any obvious-to-pick-on errors like Bush's face-making in the first and second debate, so who "won" is likely to be dependent on who you generally liked better. Also, I would say that in general this debate did not have a winner simply because it wasn't really a contest the way traditional debating is, just two people holding "simultaneous press conferences" as one of the professors called it.
There are three things I'd really like to talk about though, and I'll focus on those and leave the rest. The first is a more humorous one, and will appeal to many West Wing fans out there. In the season 2 premier of The West Wing there is a flashback to Bartlet in his days of running for office, and his campaign advisors at the time are suggesting that Bartlet refer to the guy he's running against as "my opponent" instead of by the guy's name and title, on the reasoning that repeating the guys name only means more free coverage for him. Bartlet firmly disagreed and said he thought referring to him as "my opponent" made him sound stupid, and like he couldn't remember the man's name.
It's odd to think of that, but when I was watching tonight I noticed it over and over. George Bush continually referred to Kerry as "my opponent" and never "Senator Kerry" or "John Kerry." Kerry repetitively referred to Bush as "the president" or "our current president," which makes sense because that's the man's title and he holds the highest office in the country-- he should be reffered to as the president and not by his name or "my opponent." However, I think George Bush could have given Kerry the same courtesy and referred to him as "Senator Kerry." It just sounds more professional, and like you know the man's name.
Secondly, I appreciated to highest degree Kerry's candidness with regards to women's freedom of choice, and his belief that it is fundamentally wrong to impose his religious beliefs on other Americans. I wish George Bush would have been equally candid-- the man couldn't even come out and say "I would like to end all abortions because I believe they are fundamentally wrong." Rather he said he would work to "reduce the number." That's half-assed, especially considering anyone with a brain who gets even the smallest amount of news already knows Bush's views on that. It wouldn't have hurt him to just come out and say it, and it would have allowed Bush to express the same amount of passion and integrity on the topic as Kerry did for his own view. By waffling, Bush just looked less resolute in his own stance.
Thirdly, I took one part of Bush's statements very personally tonight. I have been angry, and indignant, and unbelieving before when I've heard him speak (I've even yelled at the tv once or twice), but never did a statement he's made have such a deep emotional reaction in me. I almost wanted to cry, because for one minute I was so angry.
When Bush was asked a very specific, direct question about what he would say to a person whose job has been outsourced, he responded with a length comment about how he would promise that person help in getting an education: he would tell him to go to community college, to prepare himself for competing in jobs in the 21st century. Bush even brought up the No Child Left Behind Act again, focusing on how education would solve outsourcing.
What made me so damn, damn angry in that moment was that this man completely missed the point, that "higher-educated" jobs were being outsourced as much as "lower-educated" jobs, and that a man who has just lost his job because the same job was cheaper labor in another country obviously already had the education required for that job, or he never would have had the job to lose it in the first place. He or she did not lose that job because they were undereducated, but because the labor is cheaper overseas.
I was deeply, deeply offended that he assumed the people who are being affected by this are people who, in his view, obviously haven't educated themselves enough, and that if they were properly educated they wouldn't have lost that job. My father works in the tech industry, and he has been unemployed for the last two years, only recently finding work again this August. He lost his job due to the Hewlett Packard / Compaq merger, not outsourcing, but I know that outsourcing added to the economic environment that made finding a new job these last few years so incredibly difficult. My mother, who works as an escrow officer in the high-end commercial real estate field (as in office buildings not houses), has also had colleagues affected by outsourcing, and she's watched their jobs disappear, and she's now had to work with people in foreign countries more often than ever before.
My father has a four year degree; my mother has a two year degree. They both worked hard to educate themselves and bring themselves to where they are by now in their respective careers. To have the president tell me that if one of them lost their jobs to outsourcing that they should educate themselves was so incredibly, insulting to me. The condescension in that statement, the assumption that it's the fault of the employee that his employer can get cheaper labor oversees, the assumption that only the people who get cut are people who must have, somehow, not already tried their hardest and worked as long as they needed to get that job-- it is such an insult. It means he doesn't understand outsourcing, it means he doesn't understand the people it's affecting, it means he doesn't realize the range of affect it has in all job fields (considering people who have already been lucky enough to get a "good education" by normal American standards have to get more education to compete?) and that level of education does not protect you from outsource, and he assumes that the only people who are affected are affected because it's their fault.
I was so furious, so insulted in that moment that I wanted to cry. I didn't want to scream, I just wanted to cry because I was that angry.
George Bush, if ever you were to have, by some miracle been able to win me to your side despite all the other disagreements I have with you, in that two minute response to a single, simple question, you lost me forever. You don't know what you're talking about, you didn't understand the question you were asked, and your condescending assumptions of the people you propose to help and guide and lead reveals how little in touch you are with all of us.
I was already going to vote against him for a million other reasons, for wars and for civil rights and for much more noble causes, but it took a simple economic question for him to slip and show me that it's not just what positions he takes that I have to worry about-- he really doesn't understand the issues beyond the most surface level, and he is arrogant.
I am glad the debates are over. I don't want to look at that condescending assfuck and hear him claim that he knows where I'm coming from or he understands me ever again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 09:59 pm (UTC)Not to mention the fact that some of jobs safest from outsourcing, when you get right down to it, are the ones that don't require higher education (and often don't pay very well): service jobs. Answering phones or programming computers can be outsourced, but they can't outsource janitors or ushers or the guy who stocks the grocery store shelves. Of course, skilled professions like nursing or plumbing would be hard to outsource as well. But the presumption that gaining skills will get you a secure job just isn't true.
You're right about him being arrogant. And that arrogance underlies his economic policy as well as everything else. He's a spoiled rich kid who believes people are poor because they're lazy, and he's never cared to learn different. Which saddens me, because if it weren't for an accident of birth, he would be stocking the shelves at the grocery store, rather than making the world safer for rich white men, oil companies, and Bin Laden.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 10:17 pm (UTC)I would guess that jobs requiring hands-on labor are the only jobs safe, and even those jobs can be threatened by temp workers (a whole nother debate for another day, and one I am not so familiar with.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 10:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-13 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 04:52 am (UTC)What a great post--and I completely agree with you on how Bush responded to the outsourcing question. It was pretty clear, to me, that there was no way he could point to some program and say, "I did that, and that's going to help you get a new job." So instead, he has to trot out NCLB, which is not exactly a sterling accomplishment in my book. Shame on the President for not answering the question, because he knew that if he answered it honestly, he'd get hit. Because you know what? By not answering the question directly, he's gonna get hit.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-14 09:12 am (UTC)People panic about it, because they like to find a reason. Immigrants are taking jobs away, outsourcing, they're sending our jobs overseas. Unemployment happens due to many reasons and among them is the last four years of recession. Demand for employees goes down, but the demand for jobs never does. That is a reality we have to deal with.
I do agree with you. Bush's answer to everything was to giv epeople better education and make sure they're literate. so, because I'm having a hard time paying for my school, because I'm on my own that means I'm illiretate? Because familias out there aren't making $200,000 a year that means they're illiterate? He pissed me the hell off with his constant education rhetoric, because it isn't even a plan. It's just him spouting crap.