PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE - MISSOURI
The second presidential debate in Missouri didn't appear to shed any more light on the differences between the candidates for many undecided voters. I was personally disappointed that much of the debate consisted of the stump speeches from the respective campaigns. I wanted to hear real policies. Occasionally we got glimpses of policies from Kerry, but Bush's answer to reducing the deficit was, "Well, look at the budget... Make sure Congress doesn't overspend" Come on. That doesn't answer the question at all. How many voters are actually going to look at the budget? But Kerry didn't answer that question either. He just attacked the President's record. In fact, except with a very few exceptions, most of the night, each candidate just traded barbs instead of really talking about the issues.
With that said, I was impressed with Kerry's response to the partial-birth abortion question. It came across as sincere and earnest, and more importantly, he directly and pointedly addressed two primary issues with the bill. It doesn't allow doctors to perform partial-birth abortions when the mother's life is endangered, and it requires minors to inform their parents of an abortion, without any judicial wiggle room in situations where the minor may be impregnated by her own father, or other extenuating circumstances.
On the other side of the fence, there was one question regarding Iraq that Bush started off answering very well. He spoke of how Iraqis want freedom. That was the first time I ever heard him speak that sounded sincere, but it quickly degraded to more of his usual blind insistence that he's doing the right thing and wouldn't change a thing, regardless of the evidence. The way the President continued to jump off his stool and talk over Charlie Gibson in order to respond to Kerry made me embarrassed for him. He lacked decorum and grace under pressure. If I were undecided, it would certainly make me question his decision-making process and his ability to accept criticism and, more importantly, different points of view. I recently watched Fog of War, a documentary that interviews Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during Vietnam, and the similarities in the war and the similarities between Bush and LBJ are astounding.
The debate issue over pharmaceuticals from Canada was extremely interesting to me because it was something that I really hadn't thought about. I agree with Bush (you'll hardly every hear me say that) regarding releasing patents earlier in order to get generics on the market, but I still don't see why we cannot purchase prescription drugs from Canada. His argument that he wants to protect us from unregulated drugs that could potentially harm consumers doesn't hold water because we're not talking about getting prescription drugs from Guatemala! Canada is, arguably, one of the most regulated countries in the world. I don't hear about Canadians dropping dead because of "bad" script drugs.
However, I do recognize that there is another, trickier issue here as well. Pharmaceutical companies, like all companies, are in business to make money. They have every right to charge a premium for a drug that took them 15-20 years to develop. In order to get the best minds on a project, you need to pay them well and get the best testing and research equipment, etc. Even though it only costs them a few dollars to actually manufacture the drugs, it cost them millions in R&D to get to that point. If the pharmaceuticals become unprofitable, there will be fewer that venture into that industry. Everyone wants to feel that they have some job security, so why go into an industry that's going down the tubes. However, how can you put a price on someone's well-being? There needs to be some sort of balance.
Back to the debate. Even with Bush's over-zealousness to defend his positions, he still did much better than the first debate. I don't think he really could have done much worse, unless he completely lost it, like Perot's running mate.
Go to the Commission on Presidential Debates to view the transcript of the second debate.
With that said, I was impressed with Kerry's response to the partial-birth abortion question. It came across as sincere and earnest, and more importantly, he directly and pointedly addressed two primary issues with the bill. It doesn't allow doctors to perform partial-birth abortions when the mother's life is endangered, and it requires minors to inform their parents of an abortion, without any judicial wiggle room in situations where the minor may be impregnated by her own father, or other extenuating circumstances.
On the other side of the fence, there was one question regarding Iraq that Bush started off answering very well. He spoke of how Iraqis want freedom. That was the first time I ever heard him speak that sounded sincere, but it quickly degraded to more of his usual blind insistence that he's doing the right thing and wouldn't change a thing, regardless of the evidence. The way the President continued to jump off his stool and talk over Charlie Gibson in order to respond to Kerry made me embarrassed for him. He lacked decorum and grace under pressure. If I were undecided, it would certainly make me question his decision-making process and his ability to accept criticism and, more importantly, different points of view. I recently watched Fog of War, a documentary that interviews Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during Vietnam, and the similarities in the war and the similarities between Bush and LBJ are astounding.
The debate issue over pharmaceuticals from Canada was extremely interesting to me because it was something that I really hadn't thought about. I agree with Bush (you'll hardly every hear me say that) regarding releasing patents earlier in order to get generics on the market, but I still don't see why we cannot purchase prescription drugs from Canada. His argument that he wants to protect us from unregulated drugs that could potentially harm consumers doesn't hold water because we're not talking about getting prescription drugs from Guatemala! Canada is, arguably, one of the most regulated countries in the world. I don't hear about Canadians dropping dead because of "bad" script drugs.
However, I do recognize that there is another, trickier issue here as well. Pharmaceutical companies, like all companies, are in business to make money. They have every right to charge a premium for a drug that took them 15-20 years to develop. In order to get the best minds on a project, you need to pay them well and get the best testing and research equipment, etc. Even though it only costs them a few dollars to actually manufacture the drugs, it cost them millions in R&D to get to that point. If the pharmaceuticals become unprofitable, there will be fewer that venture into that industry. Everyone wants to feel that they have some job security, so why go into an industry that's going down the tubes. However, how can you put a price on someone's well-being? There needs to be some sort of balance.
Back to the debate. Even with Bush's over-zealousness to defend his positions, he still did much better than the first debate. I don't think he really could have done much worse, unless he completely lost it, like Perot's running mate.
Go to the Commission on Presidential Debates to view the transcript of the second debate.
posted by Rene at
1:30 AM
