We Don't Need no Stinking Debates!

E-mail this post

Remember me (?)

All personal information that you provide here will be governed by the Privacy Policy of Blogger.com. More...

Hopefully this will be my only coverage of the debate. If that's what you're looking for, scout around to some of the other blogs. I'm sure you'll find one or two that might have something to say about it. Seriously, as usual, Hugh Hewitt has solid coverage and plenty of links.

As for me, while I watched the debate (after I got home from a late meeting), it didn't do anything for me. Not that I expected it to.

I was a Bush supporter going in and I'm a Bush supporter coming out. I fail to see how tonight's hour and a half should have changed anything, and I'm a little concerned about the "I'm going to wait and see how they do in the debate before I make up my mind," crowd.

First of all, did you come away knowing anything new? There was little revealed tonight that even a passive observer of the election shouldn't have already known.

Second, and more important, it is impossible to foresee and get each man's plan for everything that will come up in the next four years. Not a lot of questions on terrorists attacking us by flying commercial jets into our landmarks during the 2000 debates, were there? So, I'm less concerned with questions on specific current hot spots. Besides, once again, these have already been hashed out plenty. If you don't already know where they stand on these, it can only be because you don't want to know (or you've exclusively been following Kerry).

Instead, I want to know the core of the man. And no, the debates don't reveal that any more than the conventions do. When some new country heats up next year, or when some new terrorist attacks, I want to know what will be the foundation behind our President's decision-making. I can trust the decisions that come out of the decision-making process if I trust what is going into that process.

When you focus too much on the specifics you get all bent out of shape because no WMD's have been found in Iraq. When you're satisfied with taking the long view of the situation you have no doubt that Saddam was a menace, no doubt that the world is a better place with him behind bars, and though stockpiles of WMD's have not been found, you have no doubt that Saddam had them, would have continued to thumb his nose at the mighty UN, and would have held on to and used them had he not been stopped with force. Exactly how much more history do you need on this?


About me

Previous posts




ATOM 0.3
  • Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs2.5 License.