Thursday, September 30, 2004
dancing about architecture
Originally uploaded by jonnybutter.
Not much to say about the 'debate' tonight. Not that that will stop the 'nattering nabobs' of teevee land all day today. I can't bear to watch any of it; because of another comittment, I can't even watch the actual debate in real-time, which is unusual for me, but..actually, it's fine.
All I can say is that I hope Jim Leher takes good care to craft his questions, hone them down to essentials - doesn't 'wing it' like he does sometimes on his own show. I'm not holding my breath on that, but also don't expect total disaster. What IS the proper way to frame the question about Iraq? Loyal republican Diane Sawer put it to Kerry in the usual, less than meaningful way: 'Given the same situation, would you have gone into Iraq?'. She wants a 'yes or no' answer to a non-yes-or-no question. I would frame the whole issue differently.
I am as fervently anti-Bush as I can be. I've supported and volunteered for both Edwards and Kerry now. I think Mr Bush is easily the worst president of the 20th century. HOWEVER, if I had to choose between a.) the debacle of this president's foreign policy performance, especially in Iraq, and b.) a successful prosecution/administration of the Iraq war, leading to huge popularity and easy re-election for Bush, I would not hesitate to choose the latter. Much as I despise the ethos of Ashcroft, Cheney, Bush and the rest, I'd rather have them in for another term than have the disaster we have now in the Arab world. And I think a whole lot of Democratic voters would agree. I even think that, privately, quite a few Democratic officeholders would agree. Some of us see a limit to partisanship, or as McCain famously said: 'Not everything is politics, George'.
[Poor Hitchens. Frantic wishful thinking. 'Round the bend, I'm afraid.]
Let's hope Kerry gets it right.