After catching the second round of the US Presidential Debates, it becomes clear that both Bush and Kerry have run out of original catch phrases.
He’s scaring you guys!
Go back and forth on those lines, sneak in an implied “He didn’t serve in Vietnam” and state as firm as you can that the other party doesn’t have “what it takes” to be commander-in-chief because he’s never been one before (isn’t that why they’re having elections anyway?) and you have the Presidential (and Vice-Presidential) debates. Now that I’ve gotten that extremely long and grammatically-challenged sentence past me, let’s move on to an opinionated rant.
Bush maintains that the world is better off without Saddam in reign. That is true of course. But the world is better off without a lot of things. I think Kerry has a good point in his “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place” argument, the one good point being “wrong time”. This is especially true in light of North Korea.
North Korea (frantically waving): We have nuclear weapons here!
USA: Nah, you’re alright.
So we’ve attacked a country we now know has no weapons of mass destruction. Bear in mind that it was the very premise upon which this war was waged. We did not enter this because Saddam had “the intention and means” as President Bush put it. To change the underlying reason for war at this point in time is a blatant lie. Some people actually call this “inconsistency”. Ceteris paribus, war on Iran and North Korea seems more justified. Honestly, if any country had a chance to upseat the world’s lone superpower, there would be intent in every heart.
That being said, I don’t find a compelling reason to like Kerry. I don’t dislike him, and I find it hard to do anything different regarding the war in Iraq give the depth of the hole we’ve dug ourselves in. Bush is right in pointing out that Kerry will find some problems in convincing allies to join in the wrong war at the wrong place in the wrong time. But that wasn’t Kerry’s mistake. If if were a mistake it was Bush’s.
During the Vice-Presidential debates the undisputed point Chaney brought up was that the effort to spread democracy throughout the world was a noble one. It’s hard to argue with that because I can’t come up with anything better. But looking at the last two elections, it’s always been a voting for the lesser of two evils. If I had a vote, I would vote for the person who didn’t seem he would mess up as bad, as opposed to a strong belief in a particular candidate.
It is hard for any self-respecting candidate to step up. Primarily because the existance of a self-respecting politician is still a hotly debated topic. Add to that the amount of money needed to campaign. That narrows down the field to rich blokes who most probably ganered up a truckload of obligations to various sponsors with a million different agendas. I’m looking for a William Wallace. Or at least someone from the middle class, if they’re going to keep talking about understanding the needs of the middle class.
Is democracy, with America being the model, all that it’s cut up to be?
Notice I’m using the royal “we” when it comes to talking about the United States of America. That’s because everything’s all rosy in Singapore. We have a Prime Minister who isn’t the lesser of two evils. There isn’t a lesser or greater when there is only one from which to choose. Not much to talk about. Not the type that results in change, anyway.
I’m a political nomad, settling wherever thought can be provoked. And that’s my two cents worth.