That's a shame. Because sometimes it's a good thing.
Isaiah 24:4 ~ The earth mourns and withers; the world languishes and withers; the highest people of the earth languish. Isaiah 40:8 ~ The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
what's sad is that both men don't understand the importance of wilting. after all, our leader himself brought it up, suggesting that senator kerry might wilt. if even a godly man like president bush won't consider wilting, what hope is there for america?
Posted by: angstridden at October 1, 2004 10:23 AMI don't think those verses are talking about the importance of wilting, but rather the basic transcience of life and nature--that only God is eternal. "Wilting" is not the same as recognizing fallibility. And I don't think Bush meant it to mean the same. I think the importance of recognizing fallibility and transcience (the point of Isaiah's words) has not been lost on Bush.
Posted by: dramaturge at October 1, 2004 02:12 PMhmmmm. I hate to say it, but Kerry might have won that one. He did a terrific job, and I'm not so sure that he wasn't right to make a bold statement like that. Yikes!... I wish President Bush had done better. Maybe next time :)
Posted by: Cindy at October 1, 2004 02:45 PMthanks, dramaturge, for clearing up my confusion. i can see now how our leader and senator kerry were using the word in two very different ways. of course kerry as a catholic doesn't understand fallibility and even if president bush didn't understand transience before he became president, the experience of 911 and of guiding us through two wars with so many casualties has surely made him understand now. how could senator kerry understand what he has gone through or be prepared to go through it himself?
Posted by: angstridden at October 1, 2004 02:51 PMright, guys.
and just for the record, i'm not necessarily trying to make an overt political statement for/against either of the candidates, or really for/against "wilting" in the sense that either of the candidates meant it.
on the contrary, it's moments like those (and my meditations, yes, on the transcience of men and the sovereignty of God) when i think the "playing field" is most leveled, as it were. maybe it was just an eerie assumption or even indigestion, but there were moments during that debate when i felt like i could see through both of the candidates -- see through their skin-deep facades (the kind we all wear) and see the men, same as me, beneath.
POLITICALLY...
(you're about to find out why i tend not to say too much)
kerry was calm and professional, though i didn't think bush particularly the opposites of those. i did hear a lot of double-talking (i.e. contradiction) in kerry's words. yes, saddam, no saddam. yes, support the troops, no don't send them money. but i was annoyed at bush's repetitive fall-backs. yes, repetition is good in a verbal milieu like that, but he did do it to the point where it seemed like he didn't have any original ideas / wordings of those ideas.
i'm incredibly surprised the word "oil" did not occur -- not that i heard, anyway.
i don't know much about debate, but i think kerry had the burden of wowing people this time around, or else -- and i don't really think he pulled it off to THAT degree. bush didn't fumble bigtime, therefore, i believe he pretty much held his own. dunno, though. i truly have a difficult time getting excited about either of the major candidates. murder and lying are heavy accusations to contend with.
Posted by: joy at October 1, 2004 04:52 PMIf I had to vote based solely on the debate I would have to go with Bush. His speach described a specific goal and a consistent attitude toward the goal of lifting iraq back up to stable autonomy. Which makes me think that he's got a plan for his administration.
Kerry, on the other hand, seemed to answer every question with the most politically pallatable answer (Even to the point where he flat out lied - I'm really not biased here, he simply lied about the inconsistency of his present views and his senatorial decisions right after affirming them to everyone). Which makes me think that He's out to win a popularity contest.
Posted by: timf at October 4, 2004 08:18 PMkerry didn't answer the questions! it seemed to me that he managed to skirt most every question thrown at him with vague terms and phrases such as "my plan" and "more of the same". not impressed.
i was particularly proud of the president in regards to the question "was this war worth the loss of our soldiers' lives?" (something like that)
to see the burden that he obviously bears for having to make such a decision was heartwrenching...i would never want to have to make it...but he's stuck by his guns, hasn't wavered, and i truly believe it will be worth it someday.
anyway, that was my venture into politics for the day...generally i avoid them like the plague