Part of the Jeopardy! 2004 College Championship was filmed on Pitt’s campus recently. Host Trebek took some time between tapings to talk to the audience.
“I don’t think either one would do particularly well [on Jeopardy!]. We deal in answers and questions. Neither one of these [presidential candidates] seems to answer any of the questions they are asked.” – Alex Trebek
For the last hour or so, I’ve been watching the second of two debates between Vice
President Bush and Governor Dukakis on CSPAN. I was in sixth grade at the time of
original broadcast. I idolized the character of Alex P. Keaton in “Family Ties”
and parroted his conservative statements and supported the candidates he liked,
much to the chagrin of my liberal Democrat parents. In my social studies class,
I debated, as if I were Bush, against a classmate playing Dukakis. I don’t recall
the substance of the debate, but I know that, in the eyes of my classmates, I cremated
“Dukakis”.
A lot has happened since them. I’ve grown up and changed. I eventually shed my conservative
skin and accepted what my parents said as political gospel. I was a bleeding heart
liberal through most of college. I gradually learned that idealism and naivete
are a bad combination. I slowly drifted toward the middle, where I am today. I’m
still and idealist, but some of my ideals have changed. My political acumen is still
dwarfed by my knack for science, but I believe I have lost much of my former naivete,
and I think I see things more clearly than I used to and many of my peers currently
do.
I watched that Bush-Dukakis with great interest. I was surprised to note the similarity
of the questions asked. I was further surprised by how similar the answers were
to those heard from Kerry and Bush. There was a very distinct difference, however.
Both candidates were more thoughtful, intelligent, and responded to more questions
without evasion, than today’s candidates. Bush, Jr. and Kerry rarely strayed from
their campaign slogans and ready-made rebuttals. Neither has debated with either
the prowess or the substance of Bush, Sr or Dukakis.
When I stepped away from the TV to write this entry, I had one very clear idea in
my head. Both of the candidates in 1988 were head and shoulders above the candidates
of 2004. 2004’s candidates are cheap imitations of 1988’s. Given the chance,
I would vote for either Bush, Sr. or Dukakis before wasting my vote on either of
the vapid, inept, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, grandstanding egomaniacs running
today.
Some people don’t care who gets trampled in the mad rush to uncover the truth.
There’s a side to RatherGate that not everyone knows about. Not everyone who said the memos were real were maliciously trying to deceive the public. Some people, like David Hailey, Utah State University associate professor of technical
communications, actually believed the memos to be real and wrote a paper attempting to prove it. This action was not well received, and Hailey’s reputation was dragged through the mud by the lynch mob looking for liberals to string up for daring to
trust the documents.
Bene Diction sums up the events nicely.
This is the bad side of blogging – the drunk driving so to speak – uncivil, hateful, vindictive, swarming.
After having a nice chat with some friends, walking home in the brisk fall breezes, and catching up on my email, I can now sit down to record my thoughts on the presidential debate. I thought about having a transcript in front of me as I write, but decided against it. I want to record my perceptions, bias and all. I think my mistakes or wrong impressions might be at least as interesting as what I get right.
Before proceeding to my impressions, I want to make it abundantly clear that I’m not a fan of Bush or Kerry. I don’t intend to vote for either. I did not go into the viewing experience rooting for one over the other. To me, it was like watching a football game between teams that mean little or nothing to me. I just want to see good football. In this case, I just wanted to see a good debate.
Now, without further ado…
I definitely want to watch this
PBS special.
CRASHING THE PARTIES 2004, a one-hour special airing on PBS Wednesday, September 29, 2004, takes the Robert Frost approach – the political road less traveled. Viewers will meet all the third party candidates who are on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the presidency. Spanning the ideological spectrum, these underdogs share one thing in common – a passionate desire to make America a better place.
[…]
Advocates of a two-party system argue that multiple parties weaken the electoral process by fragmenting the country into special interest groups, instead of building a broad-based coalition-achieving consensus. Third party supporters maintain that they make the elections more inclusive and representative of the public. In their view, Americans have dozens of choices of toothpaste brands – why not more than two choices for the most powerful job on earth?