Election 2004 Debate 3: Jeff Seemann and John Hawkins
Published October 13, 2004
John Hawkins: You chose to make things up to try to scare a bunch of college kids who don't know any better. Nobody supports a draft except a bunch of anti-war Democrats and I find it to be totally irresponsible for someone who is running for Congress to claim that there's going to be a draft when he knows the Bush administration and the military is adamantly opposed to it and there is almost no Republican support for it. That's the sort of thing I expect to hear on crackpot conspiracy websites, not coming from someone who wants to represent the American people in Congress.
Moderator: A noted conservative pundit, Robert Novak, recently wrote that secret plans were under way for the Bush administration to quickly pull out of Iraq after the scheduled January elections. This would have deleterious consequences on the planned "democratizing of the Middle East" the Bush administration has used as a reason for going to war in Iraq. Novak also goes on to say that Kerry's advisors would plan the same exit strategy as his plan to enlist European allies, which may not work. With these options at hand on either side, what exactly is the best solution for handling the Iraq situation and what do you see as the final result in Iraq?
Jeff Seemann: I think we saw today that new countries are willing to stand behind the United States if the situation in Iraq changes. It's not that our historical allies won't follow OUR lead, its that they won't follow President Bush's lead. The best solution since the President dragged us into this mess is, and always has been the same, include our allies and build a real coalition outside of the United States and Great Britain. With John Kerry as President, we have that opportunity. With George Bush and more of the same, it should be obvious by now that opportunity does not exist and we will probably have turn and run as Bob Novak asserts the President will do.
John Hawkins: Dawn, I will tell you exactly what I wrote about that column on my website, "This is just complete bullocks. There is absolutely no way that the Bush administration, after going through everything we've gone through in Iraq, is going to shrug their shoulders, walk away, and let the country descend into civil war, especially given that the Iraqis will be able to handle their own security next year. Not only would conservatives turn on the Bush administration if they did something like that, it would undercut the entire purpose of staying in Iraq after the war to begin with. It's just not going to happen."
Let me tell you what we need to do in Iraq, we need to do exactly what we're doing. We're cleaning out the militants and terrorists a city at a time right now and replacing them with Iraqi troops. As Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi said in a speech to a Joint Session of Congress, "The Iraqi government now commands almost 50,000 armed and combat- ready Iraqis. By January it will be some 145,000. And by the end of next year, some 250,000 Iraqis."
Dawn Olsen is a veteran blogger who proudly supports the guy who publishes this awesome site. She's also an avid reader of high quality tabloid fare, enjoys gardening and scatological skywriting.
- Election 2004 Debate 3: Jeff Seemann and John Hawkins
- Published: October 13, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Dawn Olsen
- Dawn Olsen's BC Writer page
- Dawn Olsen's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
the problem my friends is the level of political discourse in this country is basically 3rd grade. It's name calling. It's did not, did so, did not did so. It's ridiculous. Look at this nice debate. Both guys have great things to say, very important weighty things to think about, and really to find any of it you have to ignore the fact they are both, in their own way, acting like children. I hang my head and cry when I read things like this. Bravo to the both of you, you have brought us down one small notch further. Nice.
This was a better debate than the first one, which was so one-sided. Hawkins is clearly a more dedicated, aggressive debater than that other blogger right-winger was. Half of the statements in his closing statement are basically untrue, however, especially most of the statements about foreign policy. For most of the debate, he seemed fairly reasonable (note his comments about a balanced budget and the Supreme Court), but most of the closing statement's conclusions are irrational and eccentric.
This debate was sort of a reversal of the first debate, since Hawkins had much more to say and typed much more than Seeman did. I think Seeman won the debate (despite his recycling of Kerry stump slogans), but I don't think it was a massacre like the last one. I think it was a fairly close debate, but Seemann wins since he has more logical evidence for his positions -- I don't think Hawkins addresses many of these points. I can see where some people might think Hawkins won, though, since he seemed more "into" the debate and more passionate rhetorically.
I haven't had the chance to read the 3rd party debate yet because it's hella long and there was less direct debate on issues.
That is all.
Whomever picked the books listed on this page gets big credit. Good stuff.
P.S. -- I'd kick any of your right-wing asses in one of these, even being above it all and everything.
I thought the debate was an interesting one. Major props for John Hawkins on staying his ground against the Lib. Good job, John!
It's did not, did so, did not did so
no it's:
"yuh huh!"
"nuh uh!"
"YUH HUH!"
"NUH UH!!"
...and it is rediculous.
John Hawkins is right. There will be no draft, and his reason therefor is correct. Political poison is like the cross and wooden stake. Representatives want to be re-elected....their positions are generally flexible in the face of the strongest lobbies and the contributors therefrom.
I believe Jeff is mistaken. Even if Kerry wins the election (god forbid) there will be no discernible change in foreign policy. His promises or good intentions may be fine...but it is what the road to hell are paved with.
I spent time in Afghanistan, in Pakistan. I have seen firsthand what we "did" and "didn't do". If I was committed before to my country's course of action, I am a rabid squirrel about it after that experience.
Jeff is obviously not moving off his party's platform which is understandable. Since I write for both sides I believe I have a clearer view.
My previous writings on this site make clear my position on the issues that are raised here.
I can see by reading this entire debate, that I am going to be holding John's coat while he speaks the truth. I could not, in all good conscience do anything else.
I am from TEXAS. That isn't what causes me to support the current administration. People underestimate our President. They haven't talked to him directly. They haven't seen the committment in his eyes. They hear that he speaks to God and isn't the most eloquent speaker in the world and they run. They are sadly mistaken, for they do not realize what they have.
A good debate, well thought out, moderated beautifully, and both sides expressed their views with conviction.
I don't think there can be any question about my positions. I would support John and his positions because he is right. It's funny, a bunch of non-pollitical, middle-class, middle aged people who live in my neighborhood all of a sudden found their Bush Cheney signs from 2000.
Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing. The silent majority is INDEED silent, until it comes to the nut cutting.
Claire
you are a tremendous and surprising addition to the site, Claire. I agree that Bush is grossly misunderestimated, and although I agree with Kerry on more issues numerically, on the most important issues - ie security - I agree more with Bush.
And once again please allow me to say what a great job John, jeff and Dawn (who came up with the questions besides moderating) did. I am really surprised more political sites didn't pick up on this, shocked actually. But you never know with the Internet. We got 500K visitors to see Janet Jackson's tit - funny world.
My bullshit detector found a fragrant chunk here:
Hawkins: If you want a dovish, Massachusetts liberal, who wants to make us more vulnerable to terrorism by neutering the Patriot act, who's more concerned about making Europe mad than defending us from terrorism, who is likely to raise your taxes, who wants to massively expand the size and power of government, who smeared our troops who were fighting and dying in Vietnam when he came home from the war, who wants to allow American troops to be prosecuted by the UN, then John Kerry is your man.
Much of the rest was much better.
Claire: Even if Kerry wins the election (god forbid) there will be no discernible change in foreign policy. His promises or good intentions may be fine...but it is what the road to hell are paved with.
Later: People underestimate our President. They haven't talked to him directly. They haven't seen the committment in his eyes.
Commitment to what? His good intentions?
Hmmm, I wonder if a look into Bush's eyes is as reassuring as a look into the eyes of that other great defender of freedom and democracy, Vladimir Putin.
So this is where you guys have been hanging out. I'm ready to kill this post too. Get ready for an outlandish position nobody is prepared for. Something that stumps the blogger crowd into pause. Then someone decides to perform CPR on a perfectly well planned forum. Ignoring the lunatic (No one either understood or wanted to encourage) some one braves the dead air by posting some, unrelated to 'nut case' crap, to get the 'conversation' back on the track that was "going somewhere."
I'll find & offend you all until the new & improved Patriot Act outlaws the internets!
JR. Bob21, nothing shocks me into silence. I can't convince you of what I know. That W's intentions for this country are sound, are righteous, and are worthy. But what makes this country great is the debate and the disagreement between its citizens. I can tell you all day long that W is committed to the constitution, is commited to defending our country from any intruders, and takes his constitutional oath more seriously than he does his committment to his God, but that wouldn't convince you.
I know, for a fact, that he wants the same things I want. To sleep in peace without fear of sneak attacks on the people he is charged to protect; to see that the majority of the people in this country have jobs; to see that we continue on our path of research and development without a chasity belt, and to insure that what is currently available to the disadvantaged is gotten to them (which I admit is not enough). He wants the country we are supposed to be, and not the country we presently have. That is not a bad thing. I applaud him....long and loud.
Claire
Oh, but I can know that, Hal. I sat with him as governor, I sat with him as a presidential candidate, and I sat with both him and Laura during the campaign. I DO know it. It is the basis of my support. I know what the man is made of. It is a finer cloth than we have had in many years.
Claire
Beauty, Claire :-)
I'll have to give you his intentions, but clearly his execution shows a cognitive disconnect.
So if Bush has better intentions than Kerry, does that mean he's paving a quicker road to hell?
No, hal, JR...it means that he has good people around him and makes considered decisions, unmoved by polls, and spurred on by what is right...but hey...maybe thats not what the American people want. Maybe they want a wuss who can't make a decision, who has repeatedly demonstrated his agility in movement over the issues, and thinks POTUS would be good on his resume...
Who knows?
I am being lighthearted in this to keep from being ballistic....I am convincted that we have already the right man for the job. But hey, London is nice....I will like living there if things don't go as I plan...:)
Claire
"Spurred on by what is right"?
Sounds like any other zealot.
And a suspiciously large number of "the people around him" seem to be rich neoconservatives and former industry lobbyists now over-seeing the swame industries.
Good intentions aren't enough.
Actually it's "spurred on by what is Right." There's a difference.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/20952)
Conservatives in the US support small government, capitalism, a fairly strict reading of the Constitution, and traditional American values.
The big problem is that is what they (and I include almost all of the particular species who prowl along the garbage dump which is USAian politics) say, but that is nothing what they do. They are bottom feeders, scavengers and look up to rats.
They are scavengers and reactonaries, only looking for carrion to feed on.
Which is why they only associate with their own pack mates.