So Bush voters thought his re-election would send a message to the rest of the world that would ultimately make us safer, while anti-Bush voters believed that ousting Bush would make us more secure. A quick spin around the world says that no one was right; the world is in flux regardless of current U.S. policy. Consider the bad:
-Unless you’re an idealistic ostrich, it’s fairly obvious that Iran is trying to move towards a nuclear arsenal. Did they speed the program up because of U.S. involvement in Iraq? Perhaps, but except for the tunnel-visioned who blame everything on Bush, the history of their nuclear program says that this was going to happen regardless of U.S. policy.
-Russia is trying to re-exert its power in the region, as evidenced by the Ukranian election. Couple that with the Chechnyan conflicts and the U.S./European/Soviet history, and it’s pretty tough policy figuring out how to deal with the Russians.
-Al-Qaeda has likely been weakened, but is far from being torn asunder.
And, consider the good news:
-It’s early, but Palestinian leaders seem to be softening their stance towards Israel since the death of Yasser Arafat. Recently, Abbas personally has called for Palestinian media to quit broadcasting and publishing anti-Jewish pieces.
-Kofi Annan is finally being exposed for the trough-feeding bureaucrat that many people have suspected him to be, and his leadership is perhaps about to end. If that happens, a strong leader at the U.N. could actually give that organization one more shot at being something other than a debating body that squanders and bleeds Western money.
-Say what you will about Bush, but the Fallujah offensive in Iraq is a smart moved that should have been done a long time ago. We’re not looking at the end of the insurgency, but the Arab community has a long, long history of only responding to force. It’s time we apply a bit more of it, and by winning the election Bush has some time to use it.
The future could take a million different paths. However, here are some realistic and credible things I believe we can do as a nation to insure that we head down the right one:
-Err on the side of military pressure in Iraq. Again, Arab culture has historically responded to force. Don’t think of Al-Qaeda, Palestine and Iran with American and European values. To them, diplomacy is a sign of weakness; just witness Yasser Arafat turning down the Palestinian homeland, the assassination of Anwar Sadat after the Egypt-Israel peace treaty, and miles of history in the brutality of those who ascend to leadership in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, King Farouk, the Ottoman Empire, and Syria's Hafiz Assad of Syria’s, just to name a few in the 20th century). These are people who respect little other than the big stick. Use it.
-Recognize Russia as an opponent, but not an enemy. Russia has centuries as a powerful nation, which is something the U.S. cannot relate to. (We could perhaps counsel England for some insights.) Neither the Russian people nor their leadership has taken kindly to their reduced role in the world, and we’re starting to see them play a heavy hand in their own region. If left unchecked they will start doing the same on a wider scale.
This is a delicate situation. Russia will be a world player just due to the size and population of their nation. Throw in their history and you have a country that will be willing to fight to regain supremacy for years, decades, or even centuries. We need to treat the Russians as you would a colleague in the same situation; with a mixture of deference, camaraderie, and a firm understanding of both the power you hold and how to use it without waving it in their face. Lots of neo-con haters have their concerns misplaced. The arrogance this administration is capable of will actually work well vs. the Middle East. Russia, however, is a different story. Perhaps Bush recognizes this, which is why he refers to Vladimir Putin as his friend. It will take a long, concerted effort, but we can make Russia our friend as well if they see us as allies on the world stage for the long haul. Not an easy proposition, but not impossible, either.
-China is Russia times 10. And the Chinese seem to have a way of “doing business” that would make the most ruthless capitalist blush. Take that into account, and add in their history: China was the most innovative culture for 1000 years before being decimated by the upstart Europeans and by internal problems (drugs, corrupt government); the tentatively re-built government was torn asunder by WWII; they underwent a short revival of sorts under a brutal Communist regime; they are now embracing their own hybrid form of government again, a quasi capitalist-socialist mix.
Going back to the “colleague” analogy above, what would you do with a business associate who had built a successful company, was ousted, had a new company that failed, and was now going back to the old company to revive it? (See: Steve Jobs & Apple.) You would greet this person with reverence, but also with a certain amount of skepticism in both your policy and your tone of voice. This isn't easy, because China can bluster like Arabs (as does North Korea), but in reality they are still re-finding their feet. But it's the right course. We shouldn't thwart the Chinese from re-finding their footing, but we don’t need to help them either. Make it known that we aren't interfering, and stand back while they make mistakes, which they will. Just look at how their handling their own AIDS epidemic.
It doesn’t look to me like the world is coming to an end, but the USA, like the rest of the globe, is at a crossroads. We have the mantle of supremacy at the moment; how we deal with the other world players will determine whether we keep that mantle in the next 20-50 years. I would like to know what those of you out in blog-land think. Comment below or e-mail me.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
MOTOWN BRAWL AND WHAT IT MEANS
Being in Indianapolis, the Pacers-Pistons brawl has personal significance, and has hit me like it has many other people: shock, disgust, and anger. It has also brought up a flurry of thoughts.
1) Character matters. Along with a lot of the national media, I believe that Ron Artest had justification to go after the fan(s) throwing things at him, especially after he was hit in the face. In a lot of respects, though, that didn’t ultimately matter because it doesn't excuse him.
Unlike many other sports cities, Indianapolis doesn’t deal well with prima donnas or spoiled brats, and the local franchises have always stuck with high-character players. Artest, though, has been an anomaly. He's a loose cannon, and he needed to be traded as soon as possible for whatever the franchise could get; otherwise, he could blow up in the team’s face. Well…guess what? The bomb went off. Now the Pacers, who have been as clean as any team in professional sports, have an indelible stain that may never be wiped away.
In my years on the road playing music, I learned that, although there are a lot of extremely talented musicians, talent is not what matters. Yes, there has to be a minimum level of talent, but once someone has reached that threshold the most important thing is their character. Do they buy into the system of the organization? Can they get along with the other members even in times of adversity? Do they have bad habits (e.g. substance abuse, temper problems) that will cost you down the road? I don’t think that’s much different in any other organization, including sports teams. If your choice is between a guy with incredible talent but character flaws vs. the guy who is workmanlike but is a team player, take the latter without hesitation.
2) There has to be culpability for ALL organizations. Yes, the Pacers were the ones who went into the stands. But the conflict started because a) Piston center Ben Wallace shoved Artest, b) the Piston bench emptied prompting the Pacer bench to do the same, and c) the Pistons fans started throwing beer, ice, and anything else they could get their hands on at the Pacers. Then, the fans excerbated the conflict by coming onto the court, and continuing to throw objects and pour beer onto the Pacers. Yet it’s the Pacers who have had their season ruined by the suspensions that have been doled out. The Pistons are essentially getting off scot-free. How about a fine so large that it prevents them from signing players? Or banning them from selling beer for the remainder of the season? Or something novel, like a $100 million dollar fine, which is reduced $1MM for each offending fan they identify and prosecute (there were easily 100 fans involved)?
Without coming down hard on the Pistons the NBA punishment is hollow, unfair, and it will come back to haunt them, perhaps in ways they don’t even see now.
3) Society needs to clean itself up. What is the parentage of people who think it’s ok to show up at a sporting event and behave that way? How has violence become a solution in situations that don’t call for it, whether it’s at a sporting event or on the highway? At some point, we need to examine ourselves in the mirror and change a few things about our daily lives, and acknowledge that it's not always "the other guy." Perhaps that’s what was meant by “moral values” at the polls.
4) Why the hero worship of those who aren’t heroes? Ron Artest isn’t the kind of athlete who engenders hero worship because he’s a strange combination: a normally quiet loner with tremendous talent, and an anger management problem. But other “self-promoters” have had legions of followers, such as Dennis Rodman, Terrell Owens, Warren Sapp, and Randy Moss, while having questionable to serious character flaws. Why? What has happened in our society where these people are actually revered? And no, it’s not lost on me that all of the above are black. Is that just me as a white person missing something about the black community that allows or even encourages this type of behavior to flourish?
I don’t have all the answers, but I do see the problems. And I know we need to start finding and focusing on answers, without prejudice as to what and where the problems and solutions are found.
1) Character matters. Along with a lot of the national media, I believe that Ron Artest had justification to go after the fan(s) throwing things at him, especially after he was hit in the face. In a lot of respects, though, that didn’t ultimately matter because it doesn't excuse him.
Unlike many other sports cities, Indianapolis doesn’t deal well with prima donnas or spoiled brats, and the local franchises have always stuck with high-character players. Artest, though, has been an anomaly. He's a loose cannon, and he needed to be traded as soon as possible for whatever the franchise could get; otherwise, he could blow up in the team’s face. Well…guess what? The bomb went off. Now the Pacers, who have been as clean as any team in professional sports, have an indelible stain that may never be wiped away.
In my years on the road playing music, I learned that, although there are a lot of extremely talented musicians, talent is not what matters. Yes, there has to be a minimum level of talent, but once someone has reached that threshold the most important thing is their character. Do they buy into the system of the organization? Can they get along with the other members even in times of adversity? Do they have bad habits (e.g. substance abuse, temper problems) that will cost you down the road? I don’t think that’s much different in any other organization, including sports teams. If your choice is between a guy with incredible talent but character flaws vs. the guy who is workmanlike but is a team player, take the latter without hesitation.
2) There has to be culpability for ALL organizations. Yes, the Pacers were the ones who went into the stands. But the conflict started because a) Piston center Ben Wallace shoved Artest, b) the Piston bench emptied prompting the Pacer bench to do the same, and c) the Pistons fans started throwing beer, ice, and anything else they could get their hands on at the Pacers. Then, the fans excerbated the conflict by coming onto the court, and continuing to throw objects and pour beer onto the Pacers. Yet it’s the Pacers who have had their season ruined by the suspensions that have been doled out. The Pistons are essentially getting off scot-free. How about a fine so large that it prevents them from signing players? Or banning them from selling beer for the remainder of the season? Or something novel, like a $100 million dollar fine, which is reduced $1MM for each offending fan they identify and prosecute (there were easily 100 fans involved)?
Without coming down hard on the Pistons the NBA punishment is hollow, unfair, and it will come back to haunt them, perhaps in ways they don’t even see now.
3) Society needs to clean itself up. What is the parentage of people who think it’s ok to show up at a sporting event and behave that way? How has violence become a solution in situations that don’t call for it, whether it’s at a sporting event or on the highway? At some point, we need to examine ourselves in the mirror and change a few things about our daily lives, and acknowledge that it's not always "the other guy." Perhaps that’s what was meant by “moral values” at the polls.
4) Why the hero worship of those who aren’t heroes? Ron Artest isn’t the kind of athlete who engenders hero worship because he’s a strange combination: a normally quiet loner with tremendous talent, and an anger management problem. But other “self-promoters” have had legions of followers, such as Dennis Rodman, Terrell Owens, Warren Sapp, and Randy Moss, while having questionable to serious character flaws. Why? What has happened in our society where these people are actually revered? And no, it’s not lost on me that all of the above are black. Is that just me as a white person missing something about the black community that allows or even encourages this type of behavior to flourish?
I don’t have all the answers, but I do see the problems. And I know we need to start finding and focusing on answers, without prejudice as to what and where the problems and solutions are found.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
DANGER AT THE POLES
Let’s start with a few postulations:
1) On a national scale, the country has moved so far to the right that it has become uncomfortably conservative for a majority of the populous. Yet,
2) the country continues to march ever more rightward, re-electing Bush by a greater margin than in 2000, and increasing the Republican margin in Congress.
3) Just as in nature, when everything gets out of balance politically, there are often violent and unforeseen “corrections.”
This spells a lot of trouble for this country. Republicans apparently see no reason to be anything other than extremely conservative. Democrats, instead of trying to put up candidates that are palatable to the moderates and independents in the electorate, are instead running liberal candidates who are also unpalatable to the mainstream, as well as being offensive to conservatives. This would explain how the country can continue to shift rightward.
It’s not hard to see the potential for some confrontations in the not-too-distant future similar to the late 60s. I’m a bit too young to remember, but it sure feels like what I imagine 1964 must have been, only in reverse: a long string of Democratic presidents with a popular 2-term Republican stuck in the middle. A winnable and controversial election gone awry in 1960; an almost unelectable GOP candidate in 1964; a “just” war gone sour….all leading to tremendous social and political upheaval in 1968 and the ultimate election of an even more divisive President.
Are we doomed to play out the same scenario? Of course things aren’t exactly as they were in the 60s, but I believe the answer is yes if we continue to get our candidates from opposite poles of the electorate.
The concern here is that Dem & GOP leaders fail to see this, and yet each can unilaterally avoid it. Both parties need to be less concerned about their “base” and concentrate on grabbing people in the middle. Yes, a lot was made this election about “turning out the base,” but let’s be real. EVERYONE turned out: base voters, independent voters, fringe voters…anyone and everyone who was actually inclined to vote did so. If the Dems had been able to grab the middle they would have wiped out Bush, no matter how many right-wingers got out to vote Republican.
The challenge is on us as well to ensure that we let our local party leaders know that we need politicians that represent the majority of the country, not its loud-mouthed fringes. If we fail, we run a grave risk of internal upheaval that, just like 40 years ago, no one saw coming and no one knew what to do when it did indeed rear its ugly head.
P.S. If you're on the political fringe, get over your bad self and recognize that retaining or finding your political voice rests with being able to claim the middle first.
1) On a national scale, the country has moved so far to the right that it has become uncomfortably conservative for a majority of the populous. Yet,
2) the country continues to march ever more rightward, re-electing Bush by a greater margin than in 2000, and increasing the Republican margin in Congress.
3) Just as in nature, when everything gets out of balance politically, there are often violent and unforeseen “corrections.”
This spells a lot of trouble for this country. Republicans apparently see no reason to be anything other than extremely conservative. Democrats, instead of trying to put up candidates that are palatable to the moderates and independents in the electorate, are instead running liberal candidates who are also unpalatable to the mainstream, as well as being offensive to conservatives. This would explain how the country can continue to shift rightward.
It’s not hard to see the potential for some confrontations in the not-too-distant future similar to the late 60s. I’m a bit too young to remember, but it sure feels like what I imagine 1964 must have been, only in reverse: a long string of Democratic presidents with a popular 2-term Republican stuck in the middle. A winnable and controversial election gone awry in 1960; an almost unelectable GOP candidate in 1964; a “just” war gone sour….all leading to tremendous social and political upheaval in 1968 and the ultimate election of an even more divisive President.
Are we doomed to play out the same scenario? Of course things aren’t exactly as they were in the 60s, but I believe the answer is yes if we continue to get our candidates from opposite poles of the electorate.
The concern here is that Dem & GOP leaders fail to see this, and yet each can unilaterally avoid it. Both parties need to be less concerned about their “base” and concentrate on grabbing people in the middle. Yes, a lot was made this election about “turning out the base,” but let’s be real. EVERYONE turned out: base voters, independent voters, fringe voters…anyone and everyone who was actually inclined to vote did so. If the Dems had been able to grab the middle they would have wiped out Bush, no matter how many right-wingers got out to vote Republican.
The challenge is on us as well to ensure that we let our local party leaders know that we need politicians that represent the majority of the country, not its loud-mouthed fringes. If we fail, we run a grave risk of internal upheaval that, just like 40 years ago, no one saw coming and no one knew what to do when it did indeed rear its ugly head.
P.S. If you're on the political fringe, get over your bad self and recognize that retaining or finding your political voice rests with being able to claim the middle first.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
IT'S 1964 ALL OVER AGAIN
It has dawned on me. Maybe everyone else has figured it out, and I’m a bit slow. But it has dawned on me why the country continues to shift rightward; the reason why liberals are scratching their heads today, still trying to come up with ridiculous reasons why they lost.
There are no moderates at the helm of the Democratic Party.
For crying out loud, Howard Dean is bidding to chair the DNC…and it appears he's being taken seriously. For those of you who are so far left that you can’t see the forest for the trees, this would be like Pat Buchanan becoming the RNC chair.
I grew up a Democrat, a party that used to stand up for the little guy. Then, the party was about correcting injustices in the system, such as racism and antitrust legislation. The Dems stood for exposing abuses of power, whether political or social, and keeping the playing field level for the common person. They voiced a clear vision of what was right and wrong in the world, and how they saw to correct it.
But not any more. Now the Dems are best embodied by their congressional leader, Nancy Pelosi. This is a party that has no clear direction other than opposition, that paints Republicans and those who vote for them stupid...and then actually tries to prove it. This is a party that represents people on the fringe but will ignore those in the center. This is a party that accepts defeat with the grace of a 2-year old, and instead of turning the mirror inward looks for spurious reasons why its candidates continue to lose. In 2000, it was a “stolen” election. In 2002 it was "knee-jerk voting." This time, it’s “stupid, dangerous Christians.” What’s it going to be next time, “stupid dangerous knee-jerk Christians that prefer red,” so they vote Republican?
Here’s the real problem, Party of My Youth: you are putting up lousy national candidates that don’t represent anyone outside of San Francisco, Hollywood, New York, and disenfranchised inner cities. Look at the county-by-county map of how the country voted. Your candidates are getting shelled. Quit patting yourselves on the back about how smart you are and how stupid everyone else is, and educate yourselves about what is really happening in the rest of the country. Maybe (gasp) visit the Midwest. Or Atlanta. Or if you have to leave the safe, fake-world reality of Liberal-Land in baby steps, head to Austin.
Barry Goldwater, who would be considered a moderate Republican today, could not win in 1964 when the country was leaning extremely left. Hear me well, my fellow Democrats: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards and Howard Dean cannot win in today’s environment, nor can anyone that looks and sounds like them. If you do not put up a centrist candidate, you will continue to get the living crap beat out of you.
Turn the mirror on yourselves for once.
There are no moderates at the helm of the Democratic Party.
For crying out loud, Howard Dean is bidding to chair the DNC…and it appears he's being taken seriously. For those of you who are so far left that you can’t see the forest for the trees, this would be like Pat Buchanan becoming the RNC chair.
I grew up a Democrat, a party that used to stand up for the little guy. Then, the party was about correcting injustices in the system, such as racism and antitrust legislation. The Dems stood for exposing abuses of power, whether political or social, and keeping the playing field level for the common person. They voiced a clear vision of what was right and wrong in the world, and how they saw to correct it.
But not any more. Now the Dems are best embodied by their congressional leader, Nancy Pelosi. This is a party that has no clear direction other than opposition, that paints Republicans and those who vote for them stupid...and then actually tries to prove it. This is a party that represents people on the fringe but will ignore those in the center. This is a party that accepts defeat with the grace of a 2-year old, and instead of turning the mirror inward looks for spurious reasons why its candidates continue to lose. In 2000, it was a “stolen” election. In 2002 it was "knee-jerk voting." This time, it’s “stupid, dangerous Christians.” What’s it going to be next time, “stupid dangerous knee-jerk Christians that prefer red,” so they vote Republican?
Here’s the real problem, Party of My Youth: you are putting up lousy national candidates that don’t represent anyone outside of San Francisco, Hollywood, New York, and disenfranchised inner cities. Look at the county-by-county map of how the country voted. Your candidates are getting shelled. Quit patting yourselves on the back about how smart you are and how stupid everyone else is, and educate yourselves about what is really happening in the rest of the country. Maybe (gasp) visit the Midwest. Or Atlanta. Or if you have to leave the safe, fake-world reality of Liberal-Land in baby steps, head to Austin.
Barry Goldwater, who would be considered a moderate Republican today, could not win in 1964 when the country was leaning extremely left. Hear me well, my fellow Democrats: John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards and Howard Dean cannot win in today’s environment, nor can anyone that looks and sounds like them. If you do not put up a centrist candidate, you will continue to get the living crap beat out of you.
Turn the mirror on yourselves for once.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
POST-ELECTION ANGER/OBSERVATIONS
48 hours after the general election, I have a few observations. I am warning the wary that this is possibly the angriest column I will ever write, but there are some things I have to publicly get off my chest because I'm listening to coastal liberals telling me why I voted the way I did. And they just don't get it:
-BIG MEDIA IS NO LONGER TRUSTWORTHY
Reporting that the exit polls showed a Kerry victory??? At 6:01pm??? Not only were they wrong, the major news organizations (other than Fox) exposed themselves yet again: They Are Not Objective!! Come on people, they so wanted to either a) believe that Kerry would win or b) influence the Central through Mountain time zone states into not voting if you were for Bush (because it was over) or insuring you’d vote if you were for Kerry (to make sure that he won). No other way to say it: that’s horse shit. Shame on NBC, shame on CBS (doubly), shame on ABC, and shame, shame, shame on CNN. I hope you all get your just rewards for hijacking a once-proud institution.
Consider this: the major news organizations were talking about how South Carolina, West Virgina and Virginia were too close to call, even though every single poll for weeks had showed them strongly in the Bush camp. The final results? Bush wins Virginia by 9%, West Virginia by 13% and North Carolina by 13%. These races were never, ever, ever in doubt, and it’s disgraceful that B.M purposely spun them as such.
At 10:00 Eastern Time I could tell that Ohio was Bush’s, yet no network would call it or even paint a grim picture for Kerry like they did with the states above for Bush. Why was it obvious? Because Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) was 80% in, with Kerry winning 65%-35%...and that’s the single most Democratic county in Ohio. Also, at that time, Bush already had a 90,000 vote lead, and they hadn’t even gotten 30% of the returns from Hamilton County (Cincinnati), the most Republican area of the state. It was obviously over, yet the networks wouldn’t call it. Some didn’t call it until Wednesday, even after Bush’s lead grew to over 130,000. So…you think there’s an obvious bias there? Do you think that B.M. is going to win any fans? Make any new Democrats? Give me a break; this makes me more Republican than ever, even if it’s just to spit in the face of so-called journalists.
-THE DEMOCRATS DON’T GET IT
How disappointing is it to someone like myself that the Democrats put up a pansy-ass blueblood liberal with not a political conviction in his body, who chooses a disingenuous, economically ruinous running mate because he might be glib? At the federal level, Republicans are running dangerously to the right, which makes them ripe for being picked off. But the Democrats inexplicably think that the best response is to yell louder from the opposite corner.
How could a party who had success with a centrist President in Bill Clinton so quickly revert to the formula that brought us Walter Mondale, Lyndon Johnson and Michael Dukakis is mystifying. This is the party that skewered Bush Sr. for being out of touch with real lives. So their answer is John Kerry? Vietnam-bashing, sushi-eating, French-speaking, ultra-millionaire, ultra-liberal Kerry? Who brings along an ambulance-chasing used-car salesman for a running mate?
And they wonder how they lost Ohio.
-LOTS OF COMPLAINERS, BUT NO DOERS
Those who think that George W. Bush didn’t deserve a return to office have a point. Yet how many of them are involved in their local political scene? Can they even name their state representative and senators? Not their congressperson or U.S. Senators, but the state and local folks. How many of the complainers are politically involved on any level other than voting once in a while? How many don’t even bother to vote in the primaries, much less know what they're voting for in their local officials?
The local level is not only the place where people affect your daily life, it’s where the candidates get chosen from. It’s Precinct Committemen/women, ward chairs and state representatives. No, they don’t decide who to choose for President, but they do decide who to choose for governor, U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House, which are the only places that Presidential candidates realistically come from. So if you don’t like your choices, you might want to start paying attention to local races and actually electing people who not only are there when you actually need a politician, but who will choose who runs this country.
IT’S NOT RELIGION
I live in the “God-Fearing Vast Wilderness of the Midwest,” which is what the coastal liberals seem to believe is everything between East Orange, NJ and Las Vegas. Well guess what? I’m hobnobbing with the local hayseed Indiana pols, who have spouted all sorts of reasons they either hate John Kerry or love George Bush. You know what? Not a single one has ever brought up a religious or moral reason for why they’re vote is going in a certain direction. Oh, there have been plenty who talked about Clinton as amoral, but not a single one who has ever mentioned voting for Bush because they like his religious stance, or won’t vote for the Democrats because they hate the prospect of gay marriage, or think that Kerry is untrustworthy because he’s divorced, Catholic, or any other religious reason. Their reasons for voting the way they did are usually partisan and political, and some are downright simplistic and even ill-thought out, but they’re not religious.
One final note: for 44 years every elected President, regardless of party, has come from Texas, Arkansas, Georgia or southern California. (I’m leaving Ford out because he was not elected). And since the 2 from California were both Republicans, this means Orange County and San Diego, not Hollywood.
The northeast may want to believe it’s still the center of the universe, but the rest of the nation doesn’t buy it. Democrats, it’s pretty simple: give the voters a candidate with an actual stance who hails from someplace other than the Corridor, and you will probably win. But all you have to do is look at that red & blue map. If you put up Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, you're going to get soundly defeated. And you'll be scratching your heads in 2008 looking for other spurious reasons as to why you can't reach the majority of Americans.
-BIG MEDIA IS NO LONGER TRUSTWORTHY
Reporting that the exit polls showed a Kerry victory??? At 6:01pm??? Not only were they wrong, the major news organizations (other than Fox) exposed themselves yet again: They Are Not Objective!! Come on people, they so wanted to either a) believe that Kerry would win or b) influence the Central through Mountain time zone states into not voting if you were for Bush (because it was over) or insuring you’d vote if you were for Kerry (to make sure that he won). No other way to say it: that’s horse shit. Shame on NBC, shame on CBS (doubly), shame on ABC, and shame, shame, shame on CNN. I hope you all get your just rewards for hijacking a once-proud institution.
Consider this: the major news organizations were talking about how South Carolina, West Virgina and Virginia were too close to call, even though every single poll for weeks had showed them strongly in the Bush camp. The final results? Bush wins Virginia by 9%, West Virginia by 13% and North Carolina by 13%. These races were never, ever, ever in doubt, and it’s disgraceful that B.M purposely spun them as such.
At 10:00 Eastern Time I could tell that Ohio was Bush’s, yet no network would call it or even paint a grim picture for Kerry like they did with the states above for Bush. Why was it obvious? Because Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) was 80% in, with Kerry winning 65%-35%...and that’s the single most Democratic county in Ohio. Also, at that time, Bush already had a 90,000 vote lead, and they hadn’t even gotten 30% of the returns from Hamilton County (Cincinnati), the most Republican area of the state. It was obviously over, yet the networks wouldn’t call it. Some didn’t call it until Wednesday, even after Bush’s lead grew to over 130,000. So…you think there’s an obvious bias there? Do you think that B.M. is going to win any fans? Make any new Democrats? Give me a break; this makes me more Republican than ever, even if it’s just to spit in the face of so-called journalists.
-THE DEMOCRATS DON’T GET IT
How disappointing is it to someone like myself that the Democrats put up a pansy-ass blueblood liberal with not a political conviction in his body, who chooses a disingenuous, economically ruinous running mate because he might be glib? At the federal level, Republicans are running dangerously to the right, which makes them ripe for being picked off. But the Democrats inexplicably think that the best response is to yell louder from the opposite corner.
How could a party who had success with a centrist President in Bill Clinton so quickly revert to the formula that brought us Walter Mondale, Lyndon Johnson and Michael Dukakis is mystifying. This is the party that skewered Bush Sr. for being out of touch with real lives. So their answer is John Kerry? Vietnam-bashing, sushi-eating, French-speaking, ultra-millionaire, ultra-liberal Kerry? Who brings along an ambulance-chasing used-car salesman for a running mate?
And they wonder how they lost Ohio.
-LOTS OF COMPLAINERS, BUT NO DOERS
Those who think that George W. Bush didn’t deserve a return to office have a point. Yet how many of them are involved in their local political scene? Can they even name their state representative and senators? Not their congressperson or U.S. Senators, but the state and local folks. How many of the complainers are politically involved on any level other than voting once in a while? How many don’t even bother to vote in the primaries, much less know what they're voting for in their local officials?
The local level is not only the place where people affect your daily life, it’s where the candidates get chosen from. It’s Precinct Committemen/women, ward chairs and state representatives. No, they don’t decide who to choose for President, but they do decide who to choose for governor, U.S. Senate, and the U.S. House, which are the only places that Presidential candidates realistically come from. So if you don’t like your choices, you might want to start paying attention to local races and actually electing people who not only are there when you actually need a politician, but who will choose who runs this country.
IT’S NOT RELIGION
I live in the “God-Fearing Vast Wilderness of the Midwest,” which is what the coastal liberals seem to believe is everything between East Orange, NJ and Las Vegas. Well guess what? I’m hobnobbing with the local hayseed Indiana pols, who have spouted all sorts of reasons they either hate John Kerry or love George Bush. You know what? Not a single one has ever brought up a religious or moral reason for why they’re vote is going in a certain direction. Oh, there have been plenty who talked about Clinton as amoral, but not a single one who has ever mentioned voting for Bush because they like his religious stance, or won’t vote for the Democrats because they hate the prospect of gay marriage, or think that Kerry is untrustworthy because he’s divorced, Catholic, or any other religious reason. Their reasons for voting the way they did are usually partisan and political, and some are downright simplistic and even ill-thought out, but they’re not religious.
One final note: for 44 years every elected President, regardless of party, has come from Texas, Arkansas, Georgia or southern California. (I’m leaving Ford out because he was not elected). And since the 2 from California were both Republicans, this means Orange County and San Diego, not Hollywood.
The northeast may want to believe it’s still the center of the universe, but the rest of the nation doesn’t buy it. Democrats, it’s pretty simple: give the voters a candidate with an actual stance who hails from someplace other than the Corridor, and you will probably win. But all you have to do is look at that red & blue map. If you put up Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, you're going to get soundly defeated. And you'll be scratching your heads in 2008 looking for other spurious reasons as to why you can't reach the majority of Americans.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
GLOAT, GLOAT, GLOAT, GLOAT
How could I predict more correctly?
-The youth vote: non-existent. Unless you think that 17% of registered voters 18-30 turning out is significant. Which Jehme Kwausfoeuo1ruroeu, or whatever the leader's name of "Rock the Vote" is, apparently believes. That's fine, keep investing your time and justifying your existence. And while you're at it, why don't you make your fortune in the lottery, since that's equally likely?
-Say it with me: which state was down to the wire in deciding the election? A hint: it's round on both sides and high in the middle....
-Despite the ridiculous media hype at the beginning of yesterday evening, were there any surprises in where the states fell? Noooooooo.
-Uh...where is New Hampshire? 24 hours after the polls closed it's too close to call. See last blog posting.
As I gloat on my predictions (which I am, at least today), why was I able to be successful? Luck? Stupid coincidence? Knowing that the Redskins now play in Maryland, not D.C.? I think it's because I listen less to spin and actually read, watch and digest a bunch of different info from a wide array of sources. I don't just listen to what I wish to believe or sources that tell me what I want to hear. And some of that are the people that read this blog.
As promised, what occurred while I worked the polls in Middle Earth (Indiana) yesterday:
4:10 The alarm goes off. Part of my brain is excited. A larger part simply says “crap.”
5:00 The Precinct Inspector, the Republican Judge and Republican Clerk were already there. We start setting up the books, turning on the voting machines and generally getting ready.
5:43 The first voter shows up, well ahead of the opening of the polls. He makes it clear that he wants to be first to vote. Only 3-4 minutes later, a line starts forming behind him. The Inspector says this is normal.
6:00 The polls open on time and the line stretches 50 feet into the lobby. The inspector now says that's unusual. I make the mistake of passing out flyers to an already assembled crowd. It’s apparent that these people don’t need help. Not knowing what else to do, I pass out flyers until I run out and vow that I won’t be doing that again for a while.
6:15 Even though it’s raining, the line stretches all the way outside. Now the Inspector acknowledges that’s abnormally heavy. This could be interesting.
6:20 An African-American woman comes up to me to question whether I was able to be passing out flyers. I show her evidence that I was within the rules and assure her that I am very sensitive to the rules. She seems to believe me. Nonetheless, note to self…don’t pass out flyers. It makes me uncomfortable in the first place, I'm not a "true believer," and I'd rather not be partisan.
6:25 The Democratic Clerk finally shows up, allowing the Democratic Judge to quit working the poll book and actually do her regular job of observing. It’s good to note that people on both sides know each other and are friendly, even though they’re working for opposite parties. The Centrist Dude’s heart is filled with hope.
6:35 My Ward Chairman, who is also running for Township Board, stops by to say hello.
7:12 The lines are still streaming out the door. People are already asking “what if it’s 6pm and you’re in line to vote?” Someone observes that they’re voting at about 100 people an hour (they may have been in line that long, I suppose). Yikes...that’s only 1200 people in a 1400 people district. Hope they don’t all show up late.
8:05 The official machine counts show that 194 people have voted. There have been 2 people who wanted to vote that weren’t in the poll book. The 2nd one is a local on-air reporter from Channel 6, Doug Harvey, who appears to be wanting trouble. I have found out that he reported from here after the primaries because this was one of the districts (of many) that ran out of ballots. Today, he didn’t want to wait for his problem to be resolved, instead leaving in a huff to call Doris Ann Sadler, the Marion County Secretary. My take is that he is purposely angling for a story to report on how “disorganized” the election is being run. What an ass.
9:20 The Democratic Judge asks if we can set up more voting booths. I set a couple up to move the total number of booths up to 8.
8:35 I call my Ward Chairman to explain what transpired with the TV reporter. He calls back later to say that everything was taken care of. Apparently he was able to diffuse the problem at the Election Board by alerting them to what really happened. Good.
9:02 I get a machine vote count; we pulled 130 last hour, so the extra booths are speeding things up. A weirdo phenomenon: this district has way, way more people with A-M than N-Z. This is a problem, because the poll books are alphabetically broken down this way, and the lines are really long for A-M.
10:00 120 votes processed last hour. A quick count of this district shows 1482 registered voters, so over a quarter have already voted. There have been 3 people turned away for not being in the poll book, and 1 person who wasn’t in the book but proved his eligibility to vote.
10:30 The line continues to extend outside. Amazing.
10:40 I happen to be outside as Mitch Daniel’s RV pulls up. (Mitch is running for governor of Indiana against incumbent Democrat Joe Kernan). I get to at least introduce myself & shake his hand. He’s got this Southern Indiana lilt he’s picked up while campaigning. I’ll be curious to see how long it lasts if he’s elected.
10:46 The absentee ballots arrive. There are 92 in one stack, 4 in one, 41 in another, and one by itself.
11:00 A total of 557 have voted, plus the 138 absentees for a total of 695 (barring duplications in the absentees).
12:05 It’s slowed down enough for the Centrist Dude to leave, pick up the Conservative Wife and vote in our district.
12:50 Coming back, things have actually slowed down. Maybe the clerks & inspector can actually get some of the absentee ballots caught up so that we’re not here until 8:00.
1:30 By comparison, things have really slowed down. Of course, since over 60% of the district has voted it can only be so heavy from here on out, at least until that expected final rush.
3:00 Voting machine tally is 863. With absentees we’re at 1001.
4:00 The tallies keep climbing; machines are now at 948. The final rush should start sometime in this hour. The good news is that the inspector & the clerks are getting the absentee ballots sorted & ready to tally.
5:12 The inspector & I have finished putting all the absentee ballots through the machines. Two provisional ballots were accidentally sent to us and 2 ballots were improperly marked so the machine can’t read them, but are pretty obvious as to what the votes were meant to be. Not my department to deal with. We’re now at a total of 1160 out of approximately 1480 registered district voters. We may not have a late rush at all.
If the absentees are any indicator, Evan Bayh and Mitch Daniels are both going to win handily. Evan’s no surprise, and I expect Daniels to win, but there are a surprising number of otherwise straight Democratic voters who are splitting their ticket for Daniels.
5:50 Miraculously, there is no one late; they have all come here early. We’re already more than halfway broken down.
7:10 Leaving to go pick up the C.W., who is already spelling gloom & doom for Bush because she’s listening to the NBC reporters. Apparently they’re rubbing their hands in glee over the downtrodden people in the Bush camp and calling this for Kerry. I am unconvinced.
7:40 forward - We go to the "victory party," which turns out to actually be somewhat victorious, mostly because Mitch Daniels wins by a fairly substantial margin. As I suspected, the presidential race is not breaking down the way the media wants it to, but is instead breaking the way the Centrist Dude saw it in the first place. We left to come home & watch the rest of the returns some time ago. Around 11:30 I could see that Bush is going to win: he's taken Florida and is going to take Ohio, although no one wants to admit it. We'll get up tomorrow & see how things have shaken out. Hopefully, Kerry isn't stupid enough to drag this out legally for a battle he'll end up losing anyway.
The Liberal New Hampshire Uncle owes me a 6-pack.
-The youth vote: non-existent. Unless you think that 17% of registered voters 18-30 turning out is significant. Which Jehme Kwausfoeuo1ruroeu, or whatever the leader's name of "Rock the Vote" is, apparently believes. That's fine, keep investing your time and justifying your existence. And while you're at it, why don't you make your fortune in the lottery, since that's equally likely?
-Say it with me: which state was down to the wire in deciding the election? A hint: it's round on both sides and high in the middle....
-Despite the ridiculous media hype at the beginning of yesterday evening, were there any surprises in where the states fell? Noooooooo.
-Uh...where is New Hampshire? 24 hours after the polls closed it's too close to call. See last blog posting.
As I gloat on my predictions (which I am, at least today), why was I able to be successful? Luck? Stupid coincidence? Knowing that the Redskins now play in Maryland, not D.C.? I think it's because I listen less to spin and actually read, watch and digest a bunch of different info from a wide array of sources. I don't just listen to what I wish to believe or sources that tell me what I want to hear. And some of that are the people that read this blog.
As promised, what occurred while I worked the polls in Middle Earth (Indiana) yesterday:
4:10 The alarm goes off. Part of my brain is excited. A larger part simply says “crap.”
5:00 The Precinct Inspector, the Republican Judge and Republican Clerk were already there. We start setting up the books, turning on the voting machines and generally getting ready.
5:43 The first voter shows up, well ahead of the opening of the polls. He makes it clear that he wants to be first to vote. Only 3-4 minutes later, a line starts forming behind him. The Inspector says this is normal.
6:00 The polls open on time and the line stretches 50 feet into the lobby. The inspector now says that's unusual. I make the mistake of passing out flyers to an already assembled crowd. It’s apparent that these people don’t need help. Not knowing what else to do, I pass out flyers until I run out and vow that I won’t be doing that again for a while.
6:15 Even though it’s raining, the line stretches all the way outside. Now the Inspector acknowledges that’s abnormally heavy. This could be interesting.
6:20 An African-American woman comes up to me to question whether I was able to be passing out flyers. I show her evidence that I was within the rules and assure her that I am very sensitive to the rules. She seems to believe me. Nonetheless, note to self…don’t pass out flyers. It makes me uncomfortable in the first place, I'm not a "true believer," and I'd rather not be partisan.
6:25 The Democratic Clerk finally shows up, allowing the Democratic Judge to quit working the poll book and actually do her regular job of observing. It’s good to note that people on both sides know each other and are friendly, even though they’re working for opposite parties. The Centrist Dude’s heart is filled with hope.
6:35 My Ward Chairman, who is also running for Township Board, stops by to say hello.
7:12 The lines are still streaming out the door. People are already asking “what if it’s 6pm and you’re in line to vote?” Someone observes that they’re voting at about 100 people an hour (they may have been in line that long, I suppose). Yikes...that’s only 1200 people in a 1400 people district. Hope they don’t all show up late.
8:05 The official machine counts show that 194 people have voted. There have been 2 people who wanted to vote that weren’t in the poll book. The 2nd one is a local on-air reporter from Channel 6, Doug Harvey, who appears to be wanting trouble. I have found out that he reported from here after the primaries because this was one of the districts (of many) that ran out of ballots. Today, he didn’t want to wait for his problem to be resolved, instead leaving in a huff to call Doris Ann Sadler, the Marion County Secretary. My take is that he is purposely angling for a story to report on how “disorganized” the election is being run. What an ass.
9:20 The Democratic Judge asks if we can set up more voting booths. I set a couple up to move the total number of booths up to 8.
8:35 I call my Ward Chairman to explain what transpired with the TV reporter. He calls back later to say that everything was taken care of. Apparently he was able to diffuse the problem at the Election Board by alerting them to what really happened. Good.
9:02 I get a machine vote count; we pulled 130 last hour, so the extra booths are speeding things up. A weirdo phenomenon: this district has way, way more people with A-M than N-Z. This is a problem, because the poll books are alphabetically broken down this way, and the lines are really long for A-M.
10:00 120 votes processed last hour. A quick count of this district shows 1482 registered voters, so over a quarter have already voted. There have been 3 people turned away for not being in the poll book, and 1 person who wasn’t in the book but proved his eligibility to vote.
10:30 The line continues to extend outside. Amazing.
10:40 I happen to be outside as Mitch Daniel’s RV pulls up. (Mitch is running for governor of Indiana against incumbent Democrat Joe Kernan). I get to at least introduce myself & shake his hand. He’s got this Southern Indiana lilt he’s picked up while campaigning. I’ll be curious to see how long it lasts if he’s elected.
10:46 The absentee ballots arrive. There are 92 in one stack, 4 in one, 41 in another, and one by itself.
11:00 A total of 557 have voted, plus the 138 absentees for a total of 695 (barring duplications in the absentees).
12:05 It’s slowed down enough for the Centrist Dude to leave, pick up the Conservative Wife and vote in our district.
12:50 Coming back, things have actually slowed down. Maybe the clerks & inspector can actually get some of the absentee ballots caught up so that we’re not here until 8:00.
1:30 By comparison, things have really slowed down. Of course, since over 60% of the district has voted it can only be so heavy from here on out, at least until that expected final rush.
3:00 Voting machine tally is 863. With absentees we’re at 1001.
4:00 The tallies keep climbing; machines are now at 948. The final rush should start sometime in this hour. The good news is that the inspector & the clerks are getting the absentee ballots sorted & ready to tally.
5:12 The inspector & I have finished putting all the absentee ballots through the machines. Two provisional ballots were accidentally sent to us and 2 ballots were improperly marked so the machine can’t read them, but are pretty obvious as to what the votes were meant to be. Not my department to deal with. We’re now at a total of 1160 out of approximately 1480 registered district voters. We may not have a late rush at all.
If the absentees are any indicator, Evan Bayh and Mitch Daniels are both going to win handily. Evan’s no surprise, and I expect Daniels to win, but there are a surprising number of otherwise straight Democratic voters who are splitting their ticket for Daniels.
5:50 Miraculously, there is no one late; they have all come here early. We’re already more than halfway broken down.
7:10 Leaving to go pick up the C.W., who is already spelling gloom & doom for Bush because she’s listening to the NBC reporters. Apparently they’re rubbing their hands in glee over the downtrodden people in the Bush camp and calling this for Kerry. I am unconvinced.
7:40 forward - We go to the "victory party," which turns out to actually be somewhat victorious, mostly because Mitch Daniels wins by a fairly substantial margin. As I suspected, the presidential race is not breaking down the way the media wants it to, but is instead breaking the way the Centrist Dude saw it in the first place. We left to come home & watch the rest of the returns some time ago. Around 11:30 I could see that Bush is going to win: he's taken Florida and is going to take Ohio, although no one wants to admit it. We'll get up tomorrow & see how things have shaken out. Hopefully, Kerry isn't stupid enough to drag this out legally for a battle he'll end up losing anyway.
The Liberal New Hampshire Uncle owes me a 6-pack.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
BOLD ELECTION PREDICTIONS
Since this is likely my last column before the election, I’ll make some bold prognostications now:
1) Despite hype to the contrary, the 20-somethings who only have cell phones will not decide this election. Young people were more motivated than ever in the late 60s & early 70s and they still didn’t get out and vote. Eligible 18-30 year old voters have consistently fallen from 50% in 1972 to less than one-third in 2000. They didn’t swing an election then, and they won’t now.
2) Ohio will be this year’s Florida, as both candidates realize that they will likely have to win that state to win the election. Not to say that Florida won’t be close, but it looks like it will go for Bush in a narrow but decisive enough margin to avoid the debacle of 4 years ago. Ohio, on the other hand, appears to be so close that it may come down to some obscure county that’s working with an abacus to tally their absentee votes.
3) There won’t be any big surprises as to where states fall, contrary to what many people are predicting. In other words, Connecticut isn’t going to go for Bush and Indiana isn’t going to go for Kerry.
4) If you’re watching the returns and looking for an early indicator, keep your eye on New Hampshire. The state will probably go for Kerry, but if Bush wins it again, that spells real trouble for the Dems. Likewise, if Kerry wins NH by 8 or more percentage points (i.e., 54%-46%) an alarm should sound for the GOP.
5) Since I’ve been badgering others for their opinions for a few weeks now, here is how I see it falling:
Since April, it’s seemed that this has been Bush’s race to lose, not Kerry’s to win. Most of the vitriol and anger towards Bush has been from young people and those who are traditionally Democrats to begin with. This is not a large enough voting bloc to oust Bush by themselves, even if they turn out in record numbers. Therefore, they must get swing voters to rally to their cause; one could say that ultimately this is the only voting bloc that matters. And it doesn't seem like the middle is falling in any direction. When that happens, take the incumbent.
Bush wins the popular vote, the states other than New Hampshire, New Mexico and possibly Iowa fall where they were in 2000, and Bush wins the election by a slightly greater margin than in 2000 with an electoral tally of 291-247. But, it's tenuous: if Ohio goes to Kerry, this swings the EC to 271-267, which is still a Bush win; however, it's also a sign there will be another state (i.e., Colorado) that will also switch from Republican to Democratic and change the outcome in favor of Kerry.
I’ll be reporting from the Republican HQ here in Indy sometime later this week. Should be fascinating, regardless of the results.
1) Despite hype to the contrary, the 20-somethings who only have cell phones will not decide this election. Young people were more motivated than ever in the late 60s & early 70s and they still didn’t get out and vote. Eligible 18-30 year old voters have consistently fallen from 50% in 1972 to less than one-third in 2000. They didn’t swing an election then, and they won’t now.
2) Ohio will be this year’s Florida, as both candidates realize that they will likely have to win that state to win the election. Not to say that Florida won’t be close, but it looks like it will go for Bush in a narrow but decisive enough margin to avoid the debacle of 4 years ago. Ohio, on the other hand, appears to be so close that it may come down to some obscure county that’s working with an abacus to tally their absentee votes.
3) There won’t be any big surprises as to where states fall, contrary to what many people are predicting. In other words, Connecticut isn’t going to go for Bush and Indiana isn’t going to go for Kerry.
4) If you’re watching the returns and looking for an early indicator, keep your eye on New Hampshire. The state will probably go for Kerry, but if Bush wins it again, that spells real trouble for the Dems. Likewise, if Kerry wins NH by 8 or more percentage points (i.e., 54%-46%) an alarm should sound for the GOP.
5) Since I’ve been badgering others for their opinions for a few weeks now, here is how I see it falling:
Since April, it’s seemed that this has been Bush’s race to lose, not Kerry’s to win. Most of the vitriol and anger towards Bush has been from young people and those who are traditionally Democrats to begin with. This is not a large enough voting bloc to oust Bush by themselves, even if they turn out in record numbers. Therefore, they must get swing voters to rally to their cause; one could say that ultimately this is the only voting bloc that matters. And it doesn't seem like the middle is falling in any direction. When that happens, take the incumbent.
Bush wins the popular vote, the states other than New Hampshire, New Mexico and possibly Iowa fall where they were in 2000, and Bush wins the election by a slightly greater margin than in 2000 with an electoral tally of 291-247. But, it's tenuous: if Ohio goes to Kerry, this swings the EC to 271-267, which is still a Bush win; however, it's also a sign there will be another state (i.e., Colorado) that will also switch from Republican to Democratic and change the outcome in favor of Kerry.
I’ll be reporting from the Republican HQ here in Indy sometime later this week. Should be fascinating, regardless of the results.
Monday, October 25, 2004
IS IT THE NATION, OR IS IT JUST ME AND MY CIRCLE?
A few days ago, I started soliciting feedback about the upcoming presidential election from my various friends & family about who they thought would win and why. As you might expect, people had a whole host of opinions. What I was not prepared for was the common thread in the answers I got, at least not until I saw them all put together. Only a few were based on reasoning or issues, and some were downright nothing but negative emotions. Some anonymous excerpts e-mailed to me:
“I believe that Kerry will win because I can’t handle the other thought.”
“I believe Bush will win. It is hard to beat a president during times of war. Personally I truly don't like either.”
“If Bush wins, it will be because people don’t want to change administrations in the midst of turmoil. If Kerry wins, it will be because the people are gullible, and would rather stick their heads in the sand & not be willing to defend our country.”
“My belief that Bush will win was best articulated by Bill Maher: ‘John Kerry is a crummy candidate.’ ”
“Voting for either one of these guys is like asking you how you want your broccoli prepared - boiled or steamed. You gotta eat it but either way is repellant.”
“John Kerry is on nobody's side but his own and his only goal is an avaricious desire to hold power in this country. He will say, and has said, ANYTHING he thinks will bring him that power on election day.”
I also find it interesting that as little as a week ago I was hearing from a number of people that they were voting for Candidate X, but they thought their man would lose. That has changed in the past week, as almost everyone now believes that whoever they’re supporting will win, and a few think their candidate will win in a surprise landslide.
(There were 2 people who sent in their musings who had not yet decided whom to vote for.) I also spoke with a number of others who expressed similar opinions, ranging from “I hate to think what will happen to this country if Kerry wins” to “It doesn’t matter who wins because both parties look alike. All you’re doing is choosing your executioner.”
Wow. I thought I could be cynical.
What’s more disturbing to me is that people are angry, but doing little about it other than voting (which is admittedly better than what 45% of the country is likely to do). And, we’re voting in many cases without actually knowing what we’re voting for or against. Just to be clear, I don’t think nor am trying to intimate that those that responded knows nothing about the issues because I’ve discussed issues with some of the respondents who gave me an emotional answer this time. I even got 3 e-mails that were extremely detailed, remarkably free of vitriol, cynicism or fear, and focused on nothing but issues. But seeing all the responses lumped together (and I got a lot), I can say that most of the people that I got answers back from aren’t making their decisions based on much past emotion, whether anger, fear, or hatred. And if we can’t make decisions based on anything factual, then why should our candidates give us anything other than fear-mongering, finger-pointing, and pandering to the lowest common denominator?
So, instead of me drawing conclusions or offering suggestions, how about this: let’s go for another round of feedback.
1) What issues are you most concerned about, and how will your candidate fix or improve those issues?
2) What can we as individuals do to get better candidates at the national level that we’re not doing now?
3) What will you personally do to help make a difference, however small, that you are not currently doing now?
Hit the “comments” link below, or e-mail me at Randall@hamsterballstudios.com. Again, no names will be used. Note even code names.
“I believe that Kerry will win because I can’t handle the other thought.”
“I believe Bush will win. It is hard to beat a president during times of war. Personally I truly don't like either.”
“If Bush wins, it will be because people don’t want to change administrations in the midst of turmoil. If Kerry wins, it will be because the people are gullible, and would rather stick their heads in the sand & not be willing to defend our country.”
“My belief that Bush will win was best articulated by Bill Maher: ‘John Kerry is a crummy candidate.’ ”
“Voting for either one of these guys is like asking you how you want your broccoli prepared - boiled or steamed. You gotta eat it but either way is repellant.”
“John Kerry is on nobody's side but his own and his only goal is an avaricious desire to hold power in this country. He will say, and has said, ANYTHING he thinks will bring him that power on election day.”
I also find it interesting that as little as a week ago I was hearing from a number of people that they were voting for Candidate X, but they thought their man would lose. That has changed in the past week, as almost everyone now believes that whoever they’re supporting will win, and a few think their candidate will win in a surprise landslide.
(There were 2 people who sent in their musings who had not yet decided whom to vote for.) I also spoke with a number of others who expressed similar opinions, ranging from “I hate to think what will happen to this country if Kerry wins” to “It doesn’t matter who wins because both parties look alike. All you’re doing is choosing your executioner.”
Wow. I thought I could be cynical.
What’s more disturbing to me is that people are angry, but doing little about it other than voting (which is admittedly better than what 45% of the country is likely to do). And, we’re voting in many cases without actually knowing what we’re voting for or against. Just to be clear, I don’t think nor am trying to intimate that those that responded knows nothing about the issues because I’ve discussed issues with some of the respondents who gave me an emotional answer this time. I even got 3 e-mails that were extremely detailed, remarkably free of vitriol, cynicism or fear, and focused on nothing but issues. But seeing all the responses lumped together (and I got a lot), I can say that most of the people that I got answers back from aren’t making their decisions based on much past emotion, whether anger, fear, or hatred. And if we can’t make decisions based on anything factual, then why should our candidates give us anything other than fear-mongering, finger-pointing, and pandering to the lowest common denominator?
So, instead of me drawing conclusions or offering suggestions, how about this: let’s go for another round of feedback.
1) What issues are you most concerned about, and how will your candidate fix or improve those issues?
2) What can we as individuals do to get better candidates at the national level that we’re not doing now?
3) What will you personally do to help make a difference, however small, that you are not currently doing now?
Hit the “comments” link below, or e-mail me at Randall@hamsterballstudios.com. Again, no names will be used. Note even code names.
Friday, October 22, 2004
THE SHIFT THAT IS STUCK IN NEUTRAL
Over the years, I have received a lot of astute political gems from the Liberal-In-Denial Dad, even if they didn’t seem to sparkle at the time. My favorite recent one was, a week or so prior to the 2000 election, he predicted that whoever won Florida would win the White House.
One of his observations, made somewhere in the late 70s, was that the country’s views were historically like a pendulum, swinging politically from left to right on roughly a 40-year cycle. So, about every 20 years the U.S. hits a new point on the pendulum: conservative, then 20 years later centrist, 20 years later liberal, 20 years later back to the center, etc. The reason for this is that whichever side was in power would focus on one set of issues while ignoring those they didn’t deem important. When the country felt that the neglect on certain issues became too great, the other side would gradually take over until the country became uncomfortable with their agenda, and so on. And this has for the most part proven to be true. Look at the last century: 1900 the pendulum was centrist, 1920 swinging to the right, 1940 swinging back to the center, 1960 swinging to the left, 1980 back to the center.
Note that this is what state the country is in, not the candidate that was elected. Roosevelt, while a liberal, was elected as a reaction to the mostly Republican policies of the past 20 years. Reagan was elected as a reaction to the mostly Democratic policies of the past 20 years. They were, in effect, the result of the shift taking place.
If this trend held, then somewhere around 2000 would be when we would have moved as far right as the center would allow, and would now be shifting back. But this hasn’t happened, at least not yet. So you have to ask: is the L-I-D Dad wrong or is there something else at work? I think he’s still correct, but 3 things have occurred to make this pendulum turn slower than it has historically:
1) The liberal left doesn’t represent the middle. The political shift has always occurred because the extreme positions of the ruling party causes them to lose touch with the center, which starts the pendulum back. The Republicans have done their part. They’re proposing a gay marriage amendment, they’re blurring the lines between separation of church and state and they’re pre-emptively striking nations in Neo-Conservative nation building. But for whatever reason, the Democrats have stopped being the party of the little guy. Instead, they're viewed by many as the party of the liberal elites, who have put up a candidate that looks and sounds just like them. This is especially maddening to the middle, because those in it are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the right.
2) Debates, whether presidential or pundit, are increasingly about attacking people's core beliefs. Liberals and conservatives alike aren't just debating issues, they're attacking how people choose to live their lives. This doesn't do anything to make the middle comfortable, but when both sides are attacking core beliefs it simply divides the middle as well as those who would be polarized to begin with.
3) We have become trained to go for style over substance. This is what people are saying when they are choosing their candidate: "Kerry looks better in debates." "Bush is more presidential." "Kerry sounds more in control." "Bush comes across as a real guy." Is anyone listening to what actually is coming out of our candidates mouths? We're not choosing Mr. America, we're choosing our nation's leader. At some point we have to re-train ourselves to see the window dressing for what it is. Unfortunately, until we do we’re not going to get real choices, because why would a major party put up a person with a real plan when we're willing to vote for a right-sounding/looking/speaking puppet with no substance? It's much easier to find that guy than someone with real credentials.
The country is ready for a shift because the conservative movement has now gone uncomfortably right; people feel it and want to vote against it. But the liberal faction is giving the country an unpalatable alternative of hedonisitic “do-as-you-please” social agendas, “we’re against your way of life Mr. & Mrs. Joe Average” rhetoric, and “we know best how to take care of you because you can’t care for yourself” socialism. The middle is as uncomfortable with this as they are with the conservatives.
If the Democrats can ever figure out that "it's the candidate, stupid" they can dominate for the next 20 years or so. Give the populous a candidate that wants a shift back to inclusiveness, helping the little guy, and putting a gentler face on America. But, if they keep serving up the likes of Kerry, Hillary and Pelosi, there is nothing to stop the rightward shift from being the lesser of two evils. And in the long run, that can be very dangerous indeed.
One of his observations, made somewhere in the late 70s, was that the country’s views were historically like a pendulum, swinging politically from left to right on roughly a 40-year cycle. So, about every 20 years the U.S. hits a new point on the pendulum: conservative, then 20 years later centrist, 20 years later liberal, 20 years later back to the center, etc. The reason for this is that whichever side was in power would focus on one set of issues while ignoring those they didn’t deem important. When the country felt that the neglect on certain issues became too great, the other side would gradually take over until the country became uncomfortable with their agenda, and so on. And this has for the most part proven to be true. Look at the last century: 1900 the pendulum was centrist, 1920 swinging to the right, 1940 swinging back to the center, 1960 swinging to the left, 1980 back to the center.
Note that this is what state the country is in, not the candidate that was elected. Roosevelt, while a liberal, was elected as a reaction to the mostly Republican policies of the past 20 years. Reagan was elected as a reaction to the mostly Democratic policies of the past 20 years. They were, in effect, the result of the shift taking place.
If this trend held, then somewhere around 2000 would be when we would have moved as far right as the center would allow, and would now be shifting back. But this hasn’t happened, at least not yet. So you have to ask: is the L-I-D Dad wrong or is there something else at work? I think he’s still correct, but 3 things have occurred to make this pendulum turn slower than it has historically:
1) The liberal left doesn’t represent the middle. The political shift has always occurred because the extreme positions of the ruling party causes them to lose touch with the center, which starts the pendulum back. The Republicans have done their part. They’re proposing a gay marriage amendment, they’re blurring the lines between separation of church and state and they’re pre-emptively striking nations in Neo-Conservative nation building. But for whatever reason, the Democrats have stopped being the party of the little guy. Instead, they're viewed by many as the party of the liberal elites, who have put up a candidate that looks and sounds just like them. This is especially maddening to the middle, because those in it are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the right.
2) Debates, whether presidential or pundit, are increasingly about attacking people's core beliefs. Liberals and conservatives alike aren't just debating issues, they're attacking how people choose to live their lives. This doesn't do anything to make the middle comfortable, but when both sides are attacking core beliefs it simply divides the middle as well as those who would be polarized to begin with.
3) We have become trained to go for style over substance. This is what people are saying when they are choosing their candidate: "Kerry looks better in debates." "Bush is more presidential." "Kerry sounds more in control." "Bush comes across as a real guy." Is anyone listening to what actually is coming out of our candidates mouths? We're not choosing Mr. America, we're choosing our nation's leader. At some point we have to re-train ourselves to see the window dressing for what it is. Unfortunately, until we do we’re not going to get real choices, because why would a major party put up a person with a real plan when we're willing to vote for a right-sounding/looking/speaking puppet with no substance? It's much easier to find that guy than someone with real credentials.
The country is ready for a shift because the conservative movement has now gone uncomfortably right; people feel it and want to vote against it. But the liberal faction is giving the country an unpalatable alternative of hedonisitic “do-as-you-please” social agendas, “we’re against your way of life Mr. & Mrs. Joe Average” rhetoric, and “we know best how to take care of you because you can’t care for yourself” socialism. The middle is as uncomfortable with this as they are with the conservatives.
If the Democrats can ever figure out that "it's the candidate, stupid" they can dominate for the next 20 years or so. Give the populous a candidate that wants a shift back to inclusiveness, helping the little guy, and putting a gentler face on America. But, if they keep serving up the likes of Kerry, Hillary and Pelosi, there is nothing to stop the rightward shift from being the lesser of two evils. And in the long run, that can be very dangerous indeed.
Monday, October 18, 2004
HOW POLITICAL CORRECTNESS POLARIZES THE COUNTRY
The Political Correctness movement is no longer about making people sensitive to the problems and differences of others, if it ever was. Instead, it is a technique to promote disadvantaged groups and kill any dissenting debate. The purveyors of P.C. do this by labeling anyone who challenges their viewpoints as “insensitive” and even advocating censuring of those people. This is not just in politics or with social issues. In fact, a great example of how pervasive this is in America can be found in the National Football League.
Michael Vick has been made the poster boy for the current NFL version of “superstar.” A black athlete blessed with great physical skills, he has struggled as an NFL quarterback. Announcers continue to praise Vick and, 3 years into his NFL career, talk about what a star he will blossom into. Unfortunately, the reality appears to be a man who doesn’t appear smart enough to grasp the mental aspects needed to be a successful NFL quarterback.
Right there is where the debate ends with the PC crowd because “black athlete” cannot be uttered in the same breath with “not smart enough". Yet, the comment has nothing to do with Vick’s race, it is simply an observation of the individual. (As a contrast, another black quarterback, Donovan McNabb, is one of the three best in the league, and still another young black QB, Byron Leftwich is a budding NFL superstar. Both posess the mental acuity required to run their offenses.)
My view of Michael Vick may prove to be wrong; he could turn out to be one of the greatest stars the game has ever seen, but that's not the issue. Sports analysts are not allowed to talk about his inability to read coverages, grasp a new offense, or react to defensive changes. In the current climate, no one can even intimate that a black athlete is not smart, even if it’s so obvious that only a fellow idiot would think otherwise.
The acceptable coverage of Vick is but one small example of the P.C. view of the world. Communities let the KKK hold rallies and we defend it as “free speech,” yet the same people will shut down any conversation if the opposing ideas are not P.C. Apparently, if you’re really on the fringe, then the P.C. crowd will let you speak because they know virtually no one will be listening. But if you might have a valid argument that is at odds with politically correct thinking, then you are demonized. And when dialog is stifled and discussions are taboo, people polarize their viewpoints by forming opinions which will sometimes be wacky and out of touch with reality; there's nothing to expose them as being out of touch with reality.
Back to the NFL: about this time last year, Rush Limbaugh was bounced from the ESPN “Gameday” show for intimating that black quarterbacks in the NFL are getting a free pass from the media. Black players and broadcasters were supposedly so incensed at this that Limbaugh was dropped by ESPN just a few days later. Now, Rush is a controversial guy who I often disagree with. However, his “crime” was bringing up this question for debate; in his segment the other panel members, two of which are black former NFL players, were expected to rebut. No one did. Later, they expressed that they were too “shocked” to say anything. That's garbage; they had no argument for it because they hadn’t previously considered it. In fact, they were exposed as being part of the very same media that was taking a hands-off approach to critizing any black quarterback. The real message: P.C. isn’t open for discussion, especially when it comes to race relations.
How ironic that Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect" was kicked off the air because Maher dared to call America cowardly for "launching missiles from afar." I guess it goes to show that it doesn't matter where you lean politically; if you offer an opinion without going through the "P.C. filter" you are not allowed to continue speaking.
If we, the citizenry, and our political and social leaders don’t start allowing more unfettered discussion of our differences then we’re going to be even more polarized, possibly leading to a divided America that could wreck our nation. This cannot be allowed to go on; Political Correctness has got to go away. We can, and should, be sensitive to other people's lives and conditions. But how can you understand people who are different from you if you won’t hear what they truly believe? And how can you expect them to understand you if you don’t speak your mind, or if you shut others out entirely?
Michael Vick has been made the poster boy for the current NFL version of “superstar.” A black athlete blessed with great physical skills, he has struggled as an NFL quarterback. Announcers continue to praise Vick and, 3 years into his NFL career, talk about what a star he will blossom into. Unfortunately, the reality appears to be a man who doesn’t appear smart enough to grasp the mental aspects needed to be a successful NFL quarterback.
Right there is where the debate ends with the PC crowd because “black athlete” cannot be uttered in the same breath with “not smart enough". Yet, the comment has nothing to do with Vick’s race, it is simply an observation of the individual. (As a contrast, another black quarterback, Donovan McNabb, is one of the three best in the league, and still another young black QB, Byron Leftwich is a budding NFL superstar. Both posess the mental acuity required to run their offenses.)
My view of Michael Vick may prove to be wrong; he could turn out to be one of the greatest stars the game has ever seen, but that's not the issue. Sports analysts are not allowed to talk about his inability to read coverages, grasp a new offense, or react to defensive changes. In the current climate, no one can even intimate that a black athlete is not smart, even if it’s so obvious that only a fellow idiot would think otherwise.
The acceptable coverage of Vick is but one small example of the P.C. view of the world. Communities let the KKK hold rallies and we defend it as “free speech,” yet the same people will shut down any conversation if the opposing ideas are not P.C. Apparently, if you’re really on the fringe, then the P.C. crowd will let you speak because they know virtually no one will be listening. But if you might have a valid argument that is at odds with politically correct thinking, then you are demonized. And when dialog is stifled and discussions are taboo, people polarize their viewpoints by forming opinions which will sometimes be wacky and out of touch with reality; there's nothing to expose them as being out of touch with reality.
Back to the NFL: about this time last year, Rush Limbaugh was bounced from the ESPN “Gameday” show for intimating that black quarterbacks in the NFL are getting a free pass from the media. Black players and broadcasters were supposedly so incensed at this that Limbaugh was dropped by ESPN just a few days later. Now, Rush is a controversial guy who I often disagree with. However, his “crime” was bringing up this question for debate; in his segment the other panel members, two of which are black former NFL players, were expected to rebut. No one did. Later, they expressed that they were too “shocked” to say anything. That's garbage; they had no argument for it because they hadn’t previously considered it. In fact, they were exposed as being part of the very same media that was taking a hands-off approach to critizing any black quarterback. The real message: P.C. isn’t open for discussion, especially when it comes to race relations.
How ironic that Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect" was kicked off the air because Maher dared to call America cowardly for "launching missiles from afar." I guess it goes to show that it doesn't matter where you lean politically; if you offer an opinion without going through the "P.C. filter" you are not allowed to continue speaking.
If we, the citizenry, and our political and social leaders don’t start allowing more unfettered discussion of our differences then we’re going to be even more polarized, possibly leading to a divided America that could wreck our nation. This cannot be allowed to go on; Political Correctness has got to go away. We can, and should, be sensitive to other people's lives and conditions. But how can you understand people who are different from you if you won’t hear what they truly believe? And how can you expect them to understand you if you don’t speak your mind, or if you shut others out entirely?
Thursday, October 14, 2004
DEBATE #3, OR, THE SHOTS DRANK ROUND THE WORLD
For those that don’t know, the Debate Game is in full swing. The intial idea came from the Winged Conservative, but was brought to full bore by the Liberal Colorado Friend. The gist of the game: pick a candidate. If it’s Kerry, you’re drinking whenever he says “middle class” or “I have a plan.” If it’s Bush, you’re drinking whenever he says “liberal” in reference to Kerry, or “It’s Hard Work.”
The Liberal Colorado Friend has already made 2 observations: when the presidential debates sink to the level of the game “Hi, Bob”, we’re not talking about Lincoln vs. Douglas. “You know, the one thing about the quotes ‘I have a plan’ and ‘It’s hard work’…I at least buy that it’s hard work.”
PRE DEBATE
Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan, has already said “John Kerry has a plan.” Kerry supporters, call in sick now.
Chris Matthews (MSNBC) says they’ll be covering John Edwards on the campaign trail tomorrow. The Conservative Wife wants to know where he’ll be so she can bring her shotgun. The Centrist Dude locates the gun and shells for her.
Tim Russert has fallen from my good graces. He might as well join hands with Gwen Ifill and say “we’re voting for Kerry, and here’s what he needs to do!” His latest patter is how Kerry needs to have a 10-point bulge with women voters, and they’ll have their opportunity tonight because “there’s a baseball game on the other channel.” Right, Tim, because those silly women can’t think for themselves with their husbands in the same room. And so long as we’re playing the chauvinist stereotype game, have you considered how many of these women who apparently can't think for themselves are going to say “You watch baseball, honey, I’m going to turn the debate on in the other room.” Does this mean Kerry shouldn’t speak to African-Americans because they’re all going to watch the sporting event? Thankfully, Tom Brokaw seems to be a voice of sanity & reason.
Andrew Card talks about Bush inheriting the “dotcom bust” and then the shock of September 11th. Why have the Republicans waited until now to talk about that? They’ve had 3.9 years to bring that up. Andrew Card then says “Being the President is more than winning on style.” ACCK! That’s close enough to “It’s hard to be President” that I’m setting up multiple shot glasses for myself & the C.W. at the next ad break.
I’m 0-2-1 on my debate predictions, but we’ll make one more:
The St. Louis Cardinals will beat the living crap out of the Houston Astros.
Chris Matthews: “Tonight’s moderator, Bob Schieffer, was on Hardball the other night. He said he’s going to be kind of liberal in his questioning.” You’ve got to be kidding! I don’t care what your political leanings are, if you are in journalism, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL! Big Media needs a wake-up call. One has to wonder if the media was of a different political makeup, would we have any Democrats? B.M. needs a wakeup call. Bloggers, unite.
DEBATE BEGINS
Ahhh…Bob Schieffer’s with CBS News. No wonder he’s a pansy-ass liberal who doesn’t care about non-partisanship.
NOTE: CD & CW’s Debate Game beverage of choice is Jagermeister. God help us all.
Howdy Doody shakes Alfred E. Neumann’s hand once again.
8:05 Howdy Doody takes the first question (“Will we ever be as safe as we when we grew up”) and doesn’t actually answer it.
Alfred E. Neumann “has a comprehensive strategy.” Good thing that didn’t come from Doody or we’d have to have called a technicality and made the Doody supporters drink.
8:07 C.W. notices the 2 candidates are dressed exactly alike! They have the same color suit, the same tie, and the same American Flag pin in the same spot.
8:10 Bush takes an apparent blindside question about the flu vaccine shortage and does a great job of answering it, turning it around to how the lack of tort reform is why we’re not getting enough vaccine from our own country, and had to rely on a British company.
Kerry, predictably, says nothing about this issue, but turns it around to how health care is bad because….oh wait…KERRY says I HAVE A PLAN!! All Kerry supporters to do 2 shots.
8:15 Kerry says “my plan” 3 times. The Liberal Colorado Friend is at 8 shots and we’re only 15 minutes into the debate. He’s in trouble.
Bush talks about Kerry’s record without using the word liberal…can he keep it up? Bush says ‘middle class.’ He’s co-opting Kerry’s drinking points.
8:20 Bob Schieffer, you’re a liberal old prune. He’s doing the Gwen Ifill moderating technique: lob Kerry softballs, throw Bush overhand fastballs. I’m offended. Bush has spittle in the corner of his mouth. Someone needs to give him the sign to wipe his mouth.
I guess the networks have decided that they’re just going to split screen full time.
8:23 Bush is rebutting Kerry’s softball question. I’ll bet Schieffer gives Kerry rebuttal time back, unike the last question where he didn’t give Bush a counter-rebuttal. And…yes he does.
Kerry said that there were fewer Pell Grants, Bush rebuts with “Kennedy is the Conservative Senator from Massachusetts.” Close enough. C.W. & C.D. drink their shots.
8:27 Bush takes a question about marriage and does something brilliant: “By proposing a Constitutional Amendment to defend gay marriage we get to involve the citizenry instead of activist judges.” In essence, the Amendment won’t get passed, but citizens will be the ones determining that.
8:33 Bob Schieffer “The Washington Post says that the health care costs have risen over 36% in the last 4 years.” There’s a non-partisan news source. Another liberal move: the cameras are tighter on Bush than they are on Kerry, so a) he looks shorter, and b) the viewers can see every nuance of his face.
8:39 Houston 4, St. Louis 2.
Kerry says “I have a better plan.” I think that’s worth 3 shots, but the rules only say 2. Debate Game update: Kerry supporters: 10 shots consumed. Bush supporters: 1.
8:41 Bush tells Bob Schieffer “I don’t think it’s wise for my opponent to quote large media sources because…oh never mind.” That’s funny! I’m not sure whether that’s really smart or really stupid. Schieffer will certainly lob no softballs his way now (like he has been), but that could also point out that Schieffer & CBS are in Kerry’s camp. Not sure how that will play out; kind of a risky gambit.
8:44 The new question is about Social Security and paying for it. At some point, will someone have the balls to stand up and say “We must change the retirement age for those below the age of X.” We all expect it, and that should be the case. How about anyone below the age of 50? They can’t retire with full benefits until the age of 68? And those under the age of 35 will get full benefits at age 70?
Kerry says that “letting young people invest their own money is ripe for disaster.” His argument is that they are the ones paying for the current system. That’s insulting, and it should be for those young idealogues who support him. He’s basically saying you’re too dumb to know what to do unless you give the federal government your money. For those of you who are above the age of 30 that also believe that young people don’t know what to do with their money, shame on you. Too many people believe that everyone else isn’t smart enough to mind their own money, but of course, that doesn’t apply to them. If this is you, you’re a disingenuous, pompous ass. Drink a shot!
8:49 Kerry: “I have a plan” and “middle class tax cuts.” 13 shots and counting.
8:50 All of the Kerry supporters say, through a drunken haze, ‘Hoowcommme Bussh’s code phrassse ain’t ‘taax cutsss?’
8:53 Bush is really playing for the Hispanic vote by suggesting that Mexican workers can come here and work “with a special card.” That won’t play well in union halls.
8:55 Bush’s little “I’m done speaking” nod is cracking us both up. He looks like a 12-year old.
8:56 Kerry: “We allegedly have people coming across our border from the Middle East.” Gee, John, you allegedly have a plan.
8:58 “We had an initiative to raise women’s pay. They stopped it.” John…what was it, and who exactly is ‘they’?
9:02 Bush calls Kerry a “liberal Senator from Massachusetts.” We do shots, 13-3. Kerry starts talking directly to Bush, this could be the “special rules shots”….ahh, but Schieffer cuts off Bush from any rebuttal. All Debate Game players are grateful.
9:04 Kerry claims he is going to cut National Guard and Reservists so they won’t have extended tours, but will increase the Special Forces to make up the difference. Is anyone listening to this? What are you going to do, John, post classified ads?
C.W. thinks that Kerry is getting so much support from certain European countries that he’s speaking to them with comments like that. Interesting point-of-view.
9:08 Houston 4, St. Louis 4, bottom of the 5th.
9:09 Kerry says something very un-Al Gore-like: “I am a hunter, I am a gun owner.” Another smart comment: “Terrorists can go into a gun show and buy an AK-47 without a background check.” I don’t agree with him: I’ve been to gun shows, and I don’t think someone of Middle Eastern descent will be sold anything by the people who man the booths. However, it will play well with soccer moms.
9:16 Good Bush answer about religion: “You are equally an American if you’re a Christian, Jew or Muslim, or choose not to worship. That’s the great thing about this country.”
Kerry understands that this is dangerous territory and says “I respect the President and his views and share them.” Good job. Move along.
9:21 Kerry is using John McCain as a pawn, saying that “I’ll work with my good friend John McCain who is sitting here in the audience.” I’m sure that McCain will have something to say about that in any post-debate interviews.
9:23 Schieffer closes on the feel-good question of the night: “We all are married to strong women. Talk about them.” But Kerry, after a good and funny start, brings up his dead mom, and said that right before she died 2 years ago he told her about what he was thinking of running for President. “She told me ‘integrity, integrity, integrity.’ “ John, there’s no one to refute you, but that comes of as really disingenuous and highly unlikely.
9:26 In Kerry’s closing statement: “I believe the greatest hopes of our generation are out there, for us to reach for them and just grab them.” Yeah…there’s one on the wall! Ooh, and there’s another one that we’ve all missed. How could we not see these golden opportunities just under our noses?
9:28 In Bush’s closing statement: “We live on the sunrise side of a mountain, not the sunset side, so we can see the coming day and look to the future.” Yeah, that was probably the #1 criterion when you were looking for a home. Give me a break.
George continues to spout Neo-Con rhetoric. The Liberal Colorado Friend, already woozy, drains the rest of his ouzo.
St. Louis 7, Houston 4. I might win one.
POST DEBATE
Bob Schrum, Sr. Kerry Advisor is spouting the same stump lines that Kerry does. This reminds me that handlers on both sides don’t seem to have any original thoughts of their own. If all you can do is restate what has already been said, then why are you being interviewed?
Chris Jansing: “I just witnessed an interesting debate between Ralph Reed and Jesse Jackson going toe-to-toe on an issue.” Too bad someone wasn’t available to take them both out at that moment.
CENTRIST DUDE ANALYSIS
This debate showed me that Kerry can’t keep his focus even over a 3 week span (unless you're considering "focus" his ability to spout the same catch-phrases), but he still performed well visually. Bush was as good as he’ll ever be in a debate, which is to say he didn't suck. Both seemed to be playing to their constituents instead of swing voters, which is probably the best course of action at this point: get your supporters to turn out.
If Bush had performed like this in debate #1, we’d be looking at a landslide in 3 weeks. Instead, we’ll be watching Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, and possibly Missouri.
St Louis wins 10-4. I am 1-2-1.
The Liberal Colorado Friend has already made 2 observations: when the presidential debates sink to the level of the game “Hi, Bob”, we’re not talking about Lincoln vs. Douglas. “You know, the one thing about the quotes ‘I have a plan’ and ‘It’s hard work’…I at least buy that it’s hard work.”
PRE DEBATE
Jennifer Granholm, Governor of Michigan, has already said “John Kerry has a plan.” Kerry supporters, call in sick now.
Chris Matthews (MSNBC) says they’ll be covering John Edwards on the campaign trail tomorrow. The Conservative Wife wants to know where he’ll be so she can bring her shotgun. The Centrist Dude locates the gun and shells for her.
Tim Russert has fallen from my good graces. He might as well join hands with Gwen Ifill and say “we’re voting for Kerry, and here’s what he needs to do!” His latest patter is how Kerry needs to have a 10-point bulge with women voters, and they’ll have their opportunity tonight because “there’s a baseball game on the other channel.” Right, Tim, because those silly women can’t think for themselves with their husbands in the same room. And so long as we’re playing the chauvinist stereotype game, have you considered how many of these women who apparently can't think for themselves are going to say “You watch baseball, honey, I’m going to turn the debate on in the other room.” Does this mean Kerry shouldn’t speak to African-Americans because they’re all going to watch the sporting event? Thankfully, Tom Brokaw seems to be a voice of sanity & reason.
Andrew Card talks about Bush inheriting the “dotcom bust” and then the shock of September 11th. Why have the Republicans waited until now to talk about that? They’ve had 3.9 years to bring that up. Andrew Card then says “Being the President is more than winning on style.” ACCK! That’s close enough to “It’s hard to be President” that I’m setting up multiple shot glasses for myself & the C.W. at the next ad break.
I’m 0-2-1 on my debate predictions, but we’ll make one more:
The St. Louis Cardinals will beat the living crap out of the Houston Astros.
Chris Matthews: “Tonight’s moderator, Bob Schieffer, was on Hardball the other night. He said he’s going to be kind of liberal in his questioning.” You’ve got to be kidding! I don’t care what your political leanings are, if you are in journalism, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL! Big Media needs a wake-up call. One has to wonder if the media was of a different political makeup, would we have any Democrats? B.M. needs a wakeup call. Bloggers, unite.
DEBATE BEGINS
Ahhh…Bob Schieffer’s with CBS News. No wonder he’s a pansy-ass liberal who doesn’t care about non-partisanship.
NOTE: CD & CW’s Debate Game beverage of choice is Jagermeister. God help us all.
Howdy Doody shakes Alfred E. Neumann’s hand once again.
8:05 Howdy Doody takes the first question (“Will we ever be as safe as we when we grew up”) and doesn’t actually answer it.
Alfred E. Neumann “has a comprehensive strategy.” Good thing that didn’t come from Doody or we’d have to have called a technicality and made the Doody supporters drink.
8:07 C.W. notices the 2 candidates are dressed exactly alike! They have the same color suit, the same tie, and the same American Flag pin in the same spot.
8:10 Bush takes an apparent blindside question about the flu vaccine shortage and does a great job of answering it, turning it around to how the lack of tort reform is why we’re not getting enough vaccine from our own country, and had to rely on a British company.
Kerry, predictably, says nothing about this issue, but turns it around to how health care is bad because….oh wait…KERRY says I HAVE A PLAN!! All Kerry supporters to do 2 shots.
8:15 Kerry says “my plan” 3 times. The Liberal Colorado Friend is at 8 shots and we’re only 15 minutes into the debate. He’s in trouble.
Bush talks about Kerry’s record without using the word liberal…can he keep it up? Bush says ‘middle class.’ He’s co-opting Kerry’s drinking points.
8:20 Bob Schieffer, you’re a liberal old prune. He’s doing the Gwen Ifill moderating technique: lob Kerry softballs, throw Bush overhand fastballs. I’m offended. Bush has spittle in the corner of his mouth. Someone needs to give him the sign to wipe his mouth.
I guess the networks have decided that they’re just going to split screen full time.
8:23 Bush is rebutting Kerry’s softball question. I’ll bet Schieffer gives Kerry rebuttal time back, unike the last question where he didn’t give Bush a counter-rebuttal. And…yes he does.
Kerry said that there were fewer Pell Grants, Bush rebuts with “Kennedy is the Conservative Senator from Massachusetts.” Close enough. C.W. & C.D. drink their shots.
8:27 Bush takes a question about marriage and does something brilliant: “By proposing a Constitutional Amendment to defend gay marriage we get to involve the citizenry instead of activist judges.” In essence, the Amendment won’t get passed, but citizens will be the ones determining that.
8:33 Bob Schieffer “The Washington Post says that the health care costs have risen over 36% in the last 4 years.” There’s a non-partisan news source. Another liberal move: the cameras are tighter on Bush than they are on Kerry, so a) he looks shorter, and b) the viewers can see every nuance of his face.
8:39 Houston 4, St. Louis 2.
Kerry says “I have a better plan.” I think that’s worth 3 shots, but the rules only say 2. Debate Game update: Kerry supporters: 10 shots consumed. Bush supporters: 1.
8:41 Bush tells Bob Schieffer “I don’t think it’s wise for my opponent to quote large media sources because…oh never mind.” That’s funny! I’m not sure whether that’s really smart or really stupid. Schieffer will certainly lob no softballs his way now (like he has been), but that could also point out that Schieffer & CBS are in Kerry’s camp. Not sure how that will play out; kind of a risky gambit.
8:44 The new question is about Social Security and paying for it. At some point, will someone have the balls to stand up and say “We must change the retirement age for those below the age of X.” We all expect it, and that should be the case. How about anyone below the age of 50? They can’t retire with full benefits until the age of 68? And those under the age of 35 will get full benefits at age 70?
Kerry says that “letting young people invest their own money is ripe for disaster.” His argument is that they are the ones paying for the current system. That’s insulting, and it should be for those young idealogues who support him. He’s basically saying you’re too dumb to know what to do unless you give the federal government your money. For those of you who are above the age of 30 that also believe that young people don’t know what to do with their money, shame on you. Too many people believe that everyone else isn’t smart enough to mind their own money, but of course, that doesn’t apply to them. If this is you, you’re a disingenuous, pompous ass. Drink a shot!
8:49 Kerry: “I have a plan” and “middle class tax cuts.” 13 shots and counting.
8:50 All of the Kerry supporters say, through a drunken haze, ‘Hoowcommme Bussh’s code phrassse ain’t ‘taax cutsss?’
8:53 Bush is really playing for the Hispanic vote by suggesting that Mexican workers can come here and work “with a special card.” That won’t play well in union halls.
8:55 Bush’s little “I’m done speaking” nod is cracking us both up. He looks like a 12-year old.
8:56 Kerry: “We allegedly have people coming across our border from the Middle East.” Gee, John, you allegedly have a plan.
8:58 “We had an initiative to raise women’s pay. They stopped it.” John…what was it, and who exactly is ‘they’?
9:02 Bush calls Kerry a “liberal Senator from Massachusetts.” We do shots, 13-3. Kerry starts talking directly to Bush, this could be the “special rules shots”….ahh, but Schieffer cuts off Bush from any rebuttal. All Debate Game players are grateful.
9:04 Kerry claims he is going to cut National Guard and Reservists so they won’t have extended tours, but will increase the Special Forces to make up the difference. Is anyone listening to this? What are you going to do, John, post classified ads?
C.W. thinks that Kerry is getting so much support from certain European countries that he’s speaking to them with comments like that. Interesting point-of-view.
9:08 Houston 4, St. Louis 4, bottom of the 5th.
9:09 Kerry says something very un-Al Gore-like: “I am a hunter, I am a gun owner.” Another smart comment: “Terrorists can go into a gun show and buy an AK-47 without a background check.” I don’t agree with him: I’ve been to gun shows, and I don’t think someone of Middle Eastern descent will be sold anything by the people who man the booths. However, it will play well with soccer moms.
9:16 Good Bush answer about religion: “You are equally an American if you’re a Christian, Jew or Muslim, or choose not to worship. That’s the great thing about this country.”
Kerry understands that this is dangerous territory and says “I respect the President and his views and share them.” Good job. Move along.
9:21 Kerry is using John McCain as a pawn, saying that “I’ll work with my good friend John McCain who is sitting here in the audience.” I’m sure that McCain will have something to say about that in any post-debate interviews.
9:23 Schieffer closes on the feel-good question of the night: “We all are married to strong women. Talk about them.” But Kerry, after a good and funny start, brings up his dead mom, and said that right before she died 2 years ago he told her about what he was thinking of running for President. “She told me ‘integrity, integrity, integrity.’ “ John, there’s no one to refute you, but that comes of as really disingenuous and highly unlikely.
9:26 In Kerry’s closing statement: “I believe the greatest hopes of our generation are out there, for us to reach for them and just grab them.” Yeah…there’s one on the wall! Ooh, and there’s another one that we’ve all missed. How could we not see these golden opportunities just under our noses?
9:28 In Bush’s closing statement: “We live on the sunrise side of a mountain, not the sunset side, so we can see the coming day and look to the future.” Yeah, that was probably the #1 criterion when you were looking for a home. Give me a break.
George continues to spout Neo-Con rhetoric. The Liberal Colorado Friend, already woozy, drains the rest of his ouzo.
St. Louis 7, Houston 4. I might win one.
POST DEBATE
Bob Schrum, Sr. Kerry Advisor is spouting the same stump lines that Kerry does. This reminds me that handlers on both sides don’t seem to have any original thoughts of their own. If all you can do is restate what has already been said, then why are you being interviewed?
Chris Jansing: “I just witnessed an interesting debate between Ralph Reed and Jesse Jackson going toe-to-toe on an issue.” Too bad someone wasn’t available to take them both out at that moment.
CENTRIST DUDE ANALYSIS
This debate showed me that Kerry can’t keep his focus even over a 3 week span (unless you're considering "focus" his ability to spout the same catch-phrases), but he still performed well visually. Bush was as good as he’ll ever be in a debate, which is to say he didn't suck. Both seemed to be playing to their constituents instead of swing voters, which is probably the best course of action at this point: get your supporters to turn out.
If Bush had performed like this in debate #1, we’d be looking at a landslide in 3 weeks. Instead, we’ll be watching Florida, Ohio, New Mexico, and possibly Missouri.
St Louis wins 10-4. I am 1-2-1.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
2ND DEBATE RECAP
PRE DEBATE My pre-debate evening routine was a bit different this time, as I was engaged in a 3-way conversation with the Liberal Colorado Friend and the Conservative Wife. That’s ok…they substituted well for Pat Buchanan and Ron Reagan’s commentaries.
By the way, today’s NY Times had published “sample questions” from readers that were so visceral to Bush and such softball lobs to Kerry that they should be banned. There needs to be a credible ranking of newspapers in this country, similar to what U.S. News does with hospitals and colleges. Despite their reputation, I think the Times journalistic ranking would be just ahead of Massachusetts Communism Daily and the Texan Cowboy Chronicle. It should no longer be referred to as “The Gray Lady.” How about “The Red Daily”? Much more appropriate.
DEBATE BEGINS
Once again, a reminder. I'm typing this in real-time, so my quotes may be paraphrased. If you want the actual quotes, read the transcripts. Now...
9:00 Charles Gibson is moderating, which is a welcome choice. He at least gives the appearance of impartiality, unlike Gwen “your 15 minutes were up 75 minutes ago” Ifill. Kerry comes out looking like Howdy Doody. Bush continues with his Alfred E. Neumann impersonation.
8:02 It’s the first question and the network is already showing Bush reaction shots. Whether reaction shots are “breaking the rules” or not, he doesn’t seem to understand that they’re going to be shown. As a contrast, Kerry remains cool and composed in his reaction shots.
8:09 Bush says that “we’ve brought 75% of Al Qaeda to justice.” Big opening if Kerry can ad lib…wait, we’re talking about Wooden Johnny here. My bad. Bush is still on the WMD argument, and he’s strident and shrill. He seems to be picking up where he left off. Who’s his debate trainer, his mom?
Kerry is offering a panacea: “I would have gotten more allies into our coalition.” Yes, John, I keep forgetting the force of your personality. You’re a veritable Kennedy and all countries of the world will fall right in line behind you.
Bush rebuts with the WMD argument yet again. Clueless, meet Dumb Ass. Kerry rebuts by looking at Bush and speaking directly to him. It doesn’t matter what they’re saying; Bush is angry and he doesn’t know why. Kerry is controlled. Both are dreaming.
8:15 Kerry continues his line of crap (“If we’d brought NATO into this”) while looking directly at Bush. Bush has an opening, and unlike Kerry he exploits it. “My opponent says ‘let’s have a summit. ‘ And what’s he’s going to say? Let’s get you into a wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time? They’re not going to follow him!” Kerry counters with the same “Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora.” I am rubber, you are glue.
8:18 Bush finally acknowledges that Saddam had no WMD. And, he’s saying that the war is about terror. Will he talk about the money trail from Saddam to Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Alas…almost…almost, George.
8:19 A woman asks Bush how to repair diplomatic relations with other countries. Tough question, yet Bush is calmed by it. Then he gets shrill again. Kerry, but he, unlike Bush, has been talking directly to whichever person asks the question. On the other hand, Bush is looking around the room after each question. Bush is now riding the “I am the president and presidents do X” horse over and over and over. How tenuous was Bush’s lead? After having a chance to close out Kerry last Thursday he’s now in danger of losing this election right here.
8:26 Bush finds his rhythm with North Korea. This is reminiscent of the Cubs clobbering the Reds after losing 2 of 3 to the hapless Mets, only to miss the Wild Card by losing their next 5 games.
8:28 Kerry is now talking about the generals who support him and mentions “Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo.” Invoking Wesley Clark as winning anything other than the Peter Principle Award is fairly stupid. I guess Kerry thinks it’s valuable to keep those 12 people that actually voted for Clark in his corner.
8:32 Bush interrupts Charles Gibson when Gibson is offering him a rebuttal opportunity. This will be a pivotal moment later and could be spun a variety of ways. Hard to say how it will be spun. In my view, Bush has lost it to the point where Republicans need to hope everyone’s watching the baseball playoffs. There’s an hour to go; Bush is starting to resemble Ross Perot, only less in control.
8:33 Kerry is asked why there haven’t been terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. He talks about how the intelligence needs to be revamped…and then talks about tax cuts. Bush is finally not shrill and rebuts the question well.
8:37 Kerry is trying to show that the tax cut is somehow tied to the President not doing everything he can to make the country safe, i.e. “Rich people get a break instead of putting that money towards security.” That’s a stretch and encapsulates why I can never be a Democrat again. Their philosophy seems to be “Are you successful? Don’t worry, we can fix that.”
8:38 Next question: “Why did you block the importation of drugs from Canada?” Bush’s answer is that drugs imported from Canada need to be safe and he’s not sure they are. That’s disingenuous, but it will probably play. Bush is now saying that we need to speed up generics. The Liberal-In-Denial Dad now has a reason to vote for Kerry.
Kerry: “The President didn’t level with you just now. The reality is that they’re drugs made right here in America, and they are safe.” Yes, John…that IS one of the points. And do you know why they’re so cheap? Price controls. Ah, but that's a story in and of itself, is it not? (e.g., Why do drug companies sell drugs to countries like Canada where they know the price controls are below a reasonable profit margin?)
SIDE NOTE: If I were the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, I would be exploring every way possible to not sell drugs to Canada. Yes, they’ll make knock-offs. But at least then the safety argument is a valid one.
8:43 Kerry is actually talking that he and Edwards support tort reform. OH, PLEASE. 8:46 Bush: “He (Kerry) says that it (malpractice insurance) is only 1% of health care costs? Defensive medical practices are part of the cost. His plan is the largest increase in federal spending in history.” Correct; I believe the figure is $620B according to U.S. News. That makes the cost of the Iraqi War pale just a bit. How are you going to pay for that one, John?
8:49 Bush talks about the recession that he inherited and when it happened (starting in late 2000). He talked about winning the war. He also says that he gave a tax increase to everyone and it was necessary to jump-start the economy. Good, solid answer. “Like you, I’m concerned about the deficit, but I’m not going to short-change troops and I’m not going to tax the economy when it’s going to cost us jobs.”
Kerry says that the President was handed a huge surplus. Uh…no. The economy had already gone south, and whatever surplus was left was dwindling in a big hurry.
8:55 Some guy in the audience seems to be a plant. He asks Kerry to look into the camera and say that he won’t raise taxes on families below $200K. Kerry acted as if he knew this was coming. That guy was a plant. But I’m not sure that this was a good idea for Kerry. He has now officially entered “Read My Lips” territory.
Bush is finding his stride. He’s less shrill, and he’s talking about what’s wrong with Kerry’s plan in a credible, logical way. “Look at the man running for the President. They don’t name him the most liberal in the Senate because he doesn’t show up. He shows up and he votes to raise taxes.” Kerry internally says “oof.”
9:00 Bush is asked about what he’s done to improve the environment. He talks about “Clear Skies” where Kerry will likely skewer him. Oh, no….Kerry’s response has NOTHING to do with the environment. After rambling for 90 seconds of his 2 minute allotment he does talk about Clear Skies. But he doesn’t say what’s wrong with it. Sigh.
Bush skewers Kerry on this. “He must be talking about the Kyoto Treaty. We would have lost jobs. But the fact is, our air is cleaner since I’ve been President.” Kerry…you have reclaimed the moniker of the current dumb ass.
9:05 A woman asks a question about how we can remain competitive wage-wise in manufacturing. Kerry doesn’t answer the question: he talks about how he’s going to give a break in other ways, like health care. “I have a plan.” Of course you do. That seems to be his talking point of the night: “I HAVE A PLAN.” He has yet to mention anything about how he’s going to help manufacturing wages.
Bush counters with various ways to help small business, including pooling small businesses into health care plans and tax breaks. The Centrist Dude and the Conservative Wife both clap and pull the imaginary Republican lever.
EDITORIAL: In the 50s through the 70s(pre-global economy) we could get away with paying a ridiculous wage to people who put Bolt A on Nut C. But the reality is that we can no longer do that. You want to stop a major amount of outsourcing? Quit giving people false hope that they can get a middle class wage for lower class work. I'm not being partisan here, that's reality. 9:10
Next question is about the Patriot Act and how he thinks it takes individual rights away. Bush gives a great answer: “Whoever is President has to take care of your individual liberties. I hope you don’t think that’s what it’s about. The Patriot Act gives the FBI and the CIA the same power it takes to get to white collar criminals and the Mafia.” Might not be true, but it’s a good answer.
Kerry: “We can’t let the terrorists change your rights.” Great retort.
9:15 Woman asks Kerry about embryonic stem cell research. Kerry looks at her the entire time, even though his answer is against what she wants to hear. That was smart. Bush: “Science is important, but so’s ethics.” George, I can’t believe your grammar is that bad.
9:19 Question is asked of Bush who he would pick for the next Supreme Court nominee. He made a joke, and then said "someone who interpreted the Constitution as opposed to someone who would try to make law." He should have stopped there, but nooo…he goes on to give Kerry points to debate by expanding on his views ( “someone who wouldn’t strike down the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the words ‘Under God’ in it.”) George…you should take a cue from your VP and stopped when you were ahead.
9:23 Kerry: “I’m a Catholic….but I can’t take what is belief for me and legislate it for someone else.” That’s a great American statement. Bush needs to respond by saying what his faith can do. Even the Conservative Wife agrees on this one. Bush is talking the Right-to-Life stance. The Conservative Wife disagrees, and so does the Centrist Dude. This is a major reason why the Centrist Dude can’t be a Republican.
9:28 Last question comes from a woman who asks what 3 decisions Bush has made that were wrong. Bush doesn’t answer. He paraphrases by saying “You were asking about big decisions and I didn’t make any wrong decisions there.” Kerry: "I voted the way I voted because I wanted accountability, and I didn’t want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad decision.Kerry: “I have a plan….I have a better plan.” It’s pretty obvious that he has no plan. The Conservative Wife says he’s trying to invoke MLK:” I have a dream.”
POST DEBATE “Coming up in this hour….Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The Conservative Wife flips off the TV, saying it’s too early for Halloween.
By the way, today’s NY Times had published “sample questions” from readers that were so visceral to Bush and such softball lobs to Kerry that they should be banned. There needs to be a credible ranking of newspapers in this country, similar to what U.S. News does with hospitals and colleges. Despite their reputation, I think the Times journalistic ranking would be just ahead of Massachusetts Communism Daily and the Texan Cowboy Chronicle. It should no longer be referred to as “The Gray Lady.” How about “The Red Daily”? Much more appropriate.
DEBATE BEGINS
Once again, a reminder. I'm typing this in real-time, so my quotes may be paraphrased. If you want the actual quotes, read the transcripts. Now...
9:00 Charles Gibson is moderating, which is a welcome choice. He at least gives the appearance of impartiality, unlike Gwen “your 15 minutes were up 75 minutes ago” Ifill. Kerry comes out looking like Howdy Doody. Bush continues with his Alfred E. Neumann impersonation.
8:02 It’s the first question and the network is already showing Bush reaction shots. Whether reaction shots are “breaking the rules” or not, he doesn’t seem to understand that they’re going to be shown. As a contrast, Kerry remains cool and composed in his reaction shots.
8:09 Bush says that “we’ve brought 75% of Al Qaeda to justice.” Big opening if Kerry can ad lib…wait, we’re talking about Wooden Johnny here. My bad. Bush is still on the WMD argument, and he’s strident and shrill. He seems to be picking up where he left off. Who’s his debate trainer, his mom?
Kerry is offering a panacea: “I would have gotten more allies into our coalition.” Yes, John, I keep forgetting the force of your personality. You’re a veritable Kennedy and all countries of the world will fall right in line behind you.
Bush rebuts with the WMD argument yet again. Clueless, meet Dumb Ass. Kerry rebuts by looking at Bush and speaking directly to him. It doesn’t matter what they’re saying; Bush is angry and he doesn’t know why. Kerry is controlled. Both are dreaming.
8:15 Kerry continues his line of crap (“If we’d brought NATO into this”) while looking directly at Bush. Bush has an opening, and unlike Kerry he exploits it. “My opponent says ‘let’s have a summit. ‘ And what’s he’s going to say? Let’s get you into a wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time? They’re not going to follow him!” Kerry counters with the same “Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora.” I am rubber, you are glue.
8:18 Bush finally acknowledges that Saddam had no WMD. And, he’s saying that the war is about terror. Will he talk about the money trail from Saddam to Hamas and Islamic Jihad? Alas…almost…almost, George.
8:19 A woman asks Bush how to repair diplomatic relations with other countries. Tough question, yet Bush is calmed by it. Then he gets shrill again. Kerry, but he, unlike Bush, has been talking directly to whichever person asks the question. On the other hand, Bush is looking around the room after each question. Bush is now riding the “I am the president and presidents do X” horse over and over and over. How tenuous was Bush’s lead? After having a chance to close out Kerry last Thursday he’s now in danger of losing this election right here.
8:26 Bush finds his rhythm with North Korea. This is reminiscent of the Cubs clobbering the Reds after losing 2 of 3 to the hapless Mets, only to miss the Wild Card by losing their next 5 games.
8:28 Kerry is now talking about the generals who support him and mentions “Wes Clark, who won the war in Kosovo.” Invoking Wesley Clark as winning anything other than the Peter Principle Award is fairly stupid. I guess Kerry thinks it’s valuable to keep those 12 people that actually voted for Clark in his corner.
8:32 Bush interrupts Charles Gibson when Gibson is offering him a rebuttal opportunity. This will be a pivotal moment later and could be spun a variety of ways. Hard to say how it will be spun. In my view, Bush has lost it to the point where Republicans need to hope everyone’s watching the baseball playoffs. There’s an hour to go; Bush is starting to resemble Ross Perot, only less in control.
8:33 Kerry is asked why there haven’t been terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. He talks about how the intelligence needs to be revamped…and then talks about tax cuts. Bush is finally not shrill and rebuts the question well.
8:37 Kerry is trying to show that the tax cut is somehow tied to the President not doing everything he can to make the country safe, i.e. “Rich people get a break instead of putting that money towards security.” That’s a stretch and encapsulates why I can never be a Democrat again. Their philosophy seems to be “Are you successful? Don’t worry, we can fix that.”
8:38 Next question: “Why did you block the importation of drugs from Canada?” Bush’s answer is that drugs imported from Canada need to be safe and he’s not sure they are. That’s disingenuous, but it will probably play. Bush is now saying that we need to speed up generics. The Liberal-In-Denial Dad now has a reason to vote for Kerry.
Kerry: “The President didn’t level with you just now. The reality is that they’re drugs made right here in America, and they are safe.” Yes, John…that IS one of the points. And do you know why they’re so cheap? Price controls. Ah, but that's a story in and of itself, is it not? (e.g., Why do drug companies sell drugs to countries like Canada where they know the price controls are below a reasonable profit margin?)
SIDE NOTE: If I were the CEO of a pharmaceutical company, I would be exploring every way possible to not sell drugs to Canada. Yes, they’ll make knock-offs. But at least then the safety argument is a valid one.
8:43 Kerry is actually talking that he and Edwards support tort reform. OH, PLEASE. 8:46 Bush: “He (Kerry) says that it (malpractice insurance) is only 1% of health care costs? Defensive medical practices are part of the cost. His plan is the largest increase in federal spending in history.” Correct; I believe the figure is $620B according to U.S. News. That makes the cost of the Iraqi War pale just a bit. How are you going to pay for that one, John?
8:49 Bush talks about the recession that he inherited and when it happened (starting in late 2000). He talked about winning the war. He also says that he gave a tax increase to everyone and it was necessary to jump-start the economy. Good, solid answer. “Like you, I’m concerned about the deficit, but I’m not going to short-change troops and I’m not going to tax the economy when it’s going to cost us jobs.”
Kerry says that the President was handed a huge surplus. Uh…no. The economy had already gone south, and whatever surplus was left was dwindling in a big hurry.
8:55 Some guy in the audience seems to be a plant. He asks Kerry to look into the camera and say that he won’t raise taxes on families below $200K. Kerry acted as if he knew this was coming. That guy was a plant. But I’m not sure that this was a good idea for Kerry. He has now officially entered “Read My Lips” territory.
Bush is finding his stride. He’s less shrill, and he’s talking about what’s wrong with Kerry’s plan in a credible, logical way. “Look at the man running for the President. They don’t name him the most liberal in the Senate because he doesn’t show up. He shows up and he votes to raise taxes.” Kerry internally says “oof.”
9:00 Bush is asked about what he’s done to improve the environment. He talks about “Clear Skies” where Kerry will likely skewer him. Oh, no….Kerry’s response has NOTHING to do with the environment. After rambling for 90 seconds of his 2 minute allotment he does talk about Clear Skies. But he doesn’t say what’s wrong with it. Sigh.
Bush skewers Kerry on this. “He must be talking about the Kyoto Treaty. We would have lost jobs. But the fact is, our air is cleaner since I’ve been President.” Kerry…you have reclaimed the moniker of the current dumb ass.
9:05 A woman asks a question about how we can remain competitive wage-wise in manufacturing. Kerry doesn’t answer the question: he talks about how he’s going to give a break in other ways, like health care. “I have a plan.” Of course you do. That seems to be his talking point of the night: “I HAVE A PLAN.” He has yet to mention anything about how he’s going to help manufacturing wages.
Bush counters with various ways to help small business, including pooling small businesses into health care plans and tax breaks. The Centrist Dude and the Conservative Wife both clap and pull the imaginary Republican lever.
EDITORIAL: In the 50s through the 70s(pre-global economy) we could get away with paying a ridiculous wage to people who put Bolt A on Nut C. But the reality is that we can no longer do that. You want to stop a major amount of outsourcing? Quit giving people false hope that they can get a middle class wage for lower class work. I'm not being partisan here, that's reality. 9:10
Next question is about the Patriot Act and how he thinks it takes individual rights away. Bush gives a great answer: “Whoever is President has to take care of your individual liberties. I hope you don’t think that’s what it’s about. The Patriot Act gives the FBI and the CIA the same power it takes to get to white collar criminals and the Mafia.” Might not be true, but it’s a good answer.
Kerry: “We can’t let the terrorists change your rights.” Great retort.
9:15 Woman asks Kerry about embryonic stem cell research. Kerry looks at her the entire time, even though his answer is against what she wants to hear. That was smart. Bush: “Science is important, but so’s ethics.” George, I can’t believe your grammar is that bad.
9:19 Question is asked of Bush who he would pick for the next Supreme Court nominee. He made a joke, and then said "someone who interpreted the Constitution as opposed to someone who would try to make law." He should have stopped there, but nooo…he goes on to give Kerry points to debate by expanding on his views ( “someone who wouldn’t strike down the Pledge of Allegiance because it has the words ‘Under God’ in it.”) George…you should take a cue from your VP and stopped when you were ahead.
9:23 Kerry: “I’m a Catholic….but I can’t take what is belief for me and legislate it for someone else.” That’s a great American statement. Bush needs to respond by saying what his faith can do. Even the Conservative Wife agrees on this one. Bush is talking the Right-to-Life stance. The Conservative Wife disagrees, and so does the Centrist Dude. This is a major reason why the Centrist Dude can’t be a Republican.
9:28 Last question comes from a woman who asks what 3 decisions Bush has made that were wrong. Bush doesn’t answer. He paraphrases by saying “You were asking about big decisions and I didn’t make any wrong decisions there.” Kerry: "I voted the way I voted because I wanted accountability, and I didn’t want to give a slush fund to Halliburton. He wants your kids to pay for it. I wanted us to pay for it, since we're at war. I don't think that's a bad decision.Kerry: “I have a plan….I have a better plan.” It’s pretty obvious that he has no plan. The Conservative Wife says he’s trying to invoke MLK:” I have a dream.”
POST DEBATE “Coming up in this hour….Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.” The Conservative Wife flips off the TV, saying it’s too early for Halloween.
Friday, October 08, 2004
IRAQ, WMD AND HOW TO FIX IT
My liberal friends and relatives continue to ask me how I can support the U.S. going into Iraq. My conservative friends and relatives will occasionally ask how I can be critical of our operations. (Admittedly, the conservative crowd asks fewer questions. They seem to be happy to have anyone around who supports the war.)
The answer to this seeming dichotomy is simple, and it’s also at the root of why we’re having trouble and may ultimately fail in the Middle East. Our case for war was, of course, Iraq’s possession or willingness to make biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons to use indiscriminately. Let me repeat this for what has been a 2-year mantra, because maybe someone will even listen this time:
The elimination of a terrorist regime that also supports terrorism financially was the sole reason to go to war. WMD only throws up a smoke screen, obfuscating our real reason for invading Iraq, and can actually do more harm than telling the truth.
18 months later…do you think I might be right on this one?
If Bush loses the election, and I still believe that it’s his to lose, it will boil down to the administration’s mind-boggling decision to make the case for war based solely on WMD. Why, to get the world on your side?? Well, that failed. Was it to get the people of the country behind you? Unnecessary. All the reasoning was to follow the years of money funneled from Saddam to families of Hamas suicide bombers and Islamic Jihad. All the ammunition was in Saddam’s willingness to use chemical weapons to subjugate his own country.
This was low-hanging fruit. Saudi Arabia may be more guilty of underwriting terrorist organizations, but as twisted as it may be they’re still our strongest Arab ally. Iran may make more strategic sense, but the conflict would be bloodier and the people of the country have no love for the U.S. (There was at least some reason to believe that the Iraqis would see us as liberators. There is virtually no chance of that in Iran, nor has there ever been.) Going after Syria would simply exacerbate the problems we already have in the Arab world simply by our support of Israel.
So our 2 choices were this: clean up Afghanistan, declare victory, and say that’s it. Bad move on a lot of levels. Or, go into Iraq, take down a dictator that no one likes, and cut off a major terrorist funding source, as well as a visible supporter. Bush didn’t go to war because of WMD any more than Kerry voted to go because of it. The naivety of the argument was that without something that would strike fear to the rest of the world (e.g., WMD), no one would support us.
Kerry will not change our Iraq policy; only people who haven’t been paying attention to what he’s said believe that he will. So, I submit once again the same thing I’ve been saying for 18 months. Guys, the following path is up for grabs: any candidate bold enough to seize on this will win the election:
- Admit that the real reason for the war was because Saddam was funding terrorist organizations. Show the money trails and how they’ve dried up.
-Without pointing a finger at the other candidate, acknowledge what we all know: the WMD info was faulty. Reiterate that this was not the primary reason for going to war.
-Re-state that our war is a war on terror. The more that terrorists pour into Iraq, the more steadfast we’ll be and the more aggressively we’ll go after them, their families, and if need be, their home countries.
I wish I believed that Kerry had the courage or Bush had the vision to adopt that strategy. Sadly, we’ll probably just watch them spar with each other over half-truths and red herrings, each one not having the guts to believe that Americans and the world can actually handle the truth.
The answer to this seeming dichotomy is simple, and it’s also at the root of why we’re having trouble and may ultimately fail in the Middle East. Our case for war was, of course, Iraq’s possession or willingness to make biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons to use indiscriminately. Let me repeat this for what has been a 2-year mantra, because maybe someone will even listen this time:
The elimination of a terrorist regime that also supports terrorism financially was the sole reason to go to war. WMD only throws up a smoke screen, obfuscating our real reason for invading Iraq, and can actually do more harm than telling the truth.
18 months later…do you think I might be right on this one?
If Bush loses the election, and I still believe that it’s his to lose, it will boil down to the administration’s mind-boggling decision to make the case for war based solely on WMD. Why, to get the world on your side?? Well, that failed. Was it to get the people of the country behind you? Unnecessary. All the reasoning was to follow the years of money funneled from Saddam to families of Hamas suicide bombers and Islamic Jihad. All the ammunition was in Saddam’s willingness to use chemical weapons to subjugate his own country.
This was low-hanging fruit. Saudi Arabia may be more guilty of underwriting terrorist organizations, but as twisted as it may be they’re still our strongest Arab ally. Iran may make more strategic sense, but the conflict would be bloodier and the people of the country have no love for the U.S. (There was at least some reason to believe that the Iraqis would see us as liberators. There is virtually no chance of that in Iran, nor has there ever been.) Going after Syria would simply exacerbate the problems we already have in the Arab world simply by our support of Israel.
So our 2 choices were this: clean up Afghanistan, declare victory, and say that’s it. Bad move on a lot of levels. Or, go into Iraq, take down a dictator that no one likes, and cut off a major terrorist funding source, as well as a visible supporter. Bush didn’t go to war because of WMD any more than Kerry voted to go because of it. The naivety of the argument was that without something that would strike fear to the rest of the world (e.g., WMD), no one would support us.
Kerry will not change our Iraq policy; only people who haven’t been paying attention to what he’s said believe that he will. So, I submit once again the same thing I’ve been saying for 18 months. Guys, the following path is up for grabs: any candidate bold enough to seize on this will win the election:
- Admit that the real reason for the war was because Saddam was funding terrorist organizations. Show the money trails and how they’ve dried up.
-Without pointing a finger at the other candidate, acknowledge what we all know: the WMD info was faulty. Reiterate that this was not the primary reason for going to war.
-Re-state that our war is a war on terror. The more that terrorists pour into Iraq, the more steadfast we’ll be and the more aggressively we’ll go after them, their families, and if need be, their home countries.
I wish I believed that Kerry had the courage or Bush had the vision to adopt that strategy. Sadly, we’ll probably just watch them spar with each other over half-truths and red herrings, each one not having the guts to believe that Americans and the world can actually handle the truth.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
THE UNDERCARD DEBATE
Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that the VP debate often has memorable lines (“I knew Jack Kennedy and you’re no Jack Kennedy.”), but rarely persuades anyone to change their vote. On to the undercard:
PRE-DEBATE (As before via MSNBC)
9:16 Joe Scarborough – “The Republicans are hoping that Edwards talks about Cheney and Halliburton, because that’s attacking the #2 guy. Cheney is going after Kerry. Edwards isn’t going to make any more scar tissue on Cheney.”
9:22 Ron Reagan, Jon Meachem (the Newseek guy) and Joe Scarborough all say that if it’s a “tie” that Edwards win. I find that interesting.
9:50 All predictions are that Edwards goes after Cheney for his involvement in Iraq and Cheney goes after Edwards for not being up to the task to hold the VP or presidency. It’s just fascinating how little all of these people seem to think of Edwards as a debater. I have a knee-jerk reaction against Edwards the politician, but he is used to public arguing. Don’t they have the debate thing backwards?
9:53 There’s an anti-Cheney sign behind the MSNBC desk that says “Leave no billionaire behind.” Have they looked at the bank accounts of Kerry and Edwards lately?
9:57 Chris Matthews: “You’re not supposed to bring in notes, but they can bring in memorized lines & write them down! Look at these two!” No doubt, the flurry of notes 4 minutes before the opening bell is quite astonishing.
DEBATE
NOTE: Since I’m typing in real time, some of the quotes may be off by a word or two. Don’t quote me; check the transcripts.
9:00 Edwards flashes a smile at his introduction. The Conservative Wife has already barfed.
9:01 How do two liberal moderators from NPR get the job in both debates so far, and get to choose the material? Who is this Gwen Ifill, other than Jim Lehrer’s cohort? Gee, how do you think she’s going to skew this?
9:03 Cheney is spouting the NeoCon line immediately. “We had to establish democracies in these places where state-sponsored terrorism was occurring.” 1000 miles away, I can hear the Liberal Colorado Friend retching.
9:09 Edwards says again that “we had Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora.” He might be in trouble here repeating what Kerry said about “outsourcing to Afghan warlords who were working with bin Laden a few weeks ago.” It makes him sound like a puppet, and that scenario is also questionable in its accuracy. He also sounds like a lawyer. “Listen to what the Vice-President says because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein & bin Laden.”
9:10 Cheney sees the opening: ‘The Senator has his facts wrong. This is what I said.” He just made mincemeat of Edwards to anyone that’s listening. Edwards should have known better. And, Cheney changes his tack to go after Kerry, not Edwards. Very smart.
9:13 Cheney talking about democracy in Afghanistan and how democracy will change the region. Edwards comes back to the “outsourcing the job to Afghan warlords.” Edwards is good at changing the subject to the place he wants to keep the focus. Even if Cheney actually eats him up on facts, Edwards looks like he’s going to hold his own. This one is shaping up to a draw, where the only people that won’t think so are the partisans.
9:16 Cheney: “20 years ago I was an observer in El Salvador and the drive for democracy was so great that they are so much better off.” Wow. El Salvadorians everywhere cheer at being recognized once every 20 years.
9:17 Edwards talking about how Iran & North Korea are greater threats now than they were 4 years ago. Gwen Ifill’s next question should be about what he is going to do about this. But it won’t be. She’s partisan, she’s not a credible journalist, and she doesn’t want to focus on Edwards fudging.
9:19 Edwards: “We’ve taken 90% of the casualties in Iraq, and we’re at 200 billion dollars and counting.” Cheney jumps on that immediately and talks about the Iraqi casualties (not civilians, but the Iraqi police that are working with us), & the number being $120 billion, of which a large chunk has gone to Afghanistan. Smart, quick answer. Cheney somehow makes Edwards look like a kid arguing with his dad when his dad has all the facts. It doesn’t even matter who’s actually correct.
9:22 Cheney: “I’m not challenging John Kerry’s patriotism. I’m questioning his judgement.” This is a heavyweight fight with 2 guys like Rocky Marciano and Mike Tyson going toe-to-toe. They can both take a lot of hits, and no one’s likely to get knocked down, much les knocked out.
9:24 Cheney just threw Edwards by talking about why Kerry changed his Iraq vote. “Howard Dean was ahead as an anti-war candidate & his team decided they needed to change his stance.” Edwards did a good job in redirecting, but he was for a moment really thrown. Don’t know why I think so but I don’t think most people will likely catch that.
9:25 Ahh…Edwards plays the Halliburton card 25 minutes in. Cheney doesn’t seem to be taking the bait. Cheney: “These are 2 guys who were for the war when the polls were good and against the war when the polls were bad.” “Oof!” says Edwards inwardly.
9:27 Edwards: “The (administration) didn’t just reject the allies leading up to the war, they rejected them in the reconstruction.” Wow…that’s putting a spin on it. Yes, if you’re naïve enough to actually think that France and Russia were potential allies in Iraq, they did indeed keep them out of reconstruction. Ahh…here comes the “body armor” statement that everyone knew was coming. Somehow, when the press has lines verbatim ahead of time those just don’t resonate.
9:30 Edwards seems to see something in what Cheney just said: he’s got this smirk on his face that I haven’t seen that seems to say “I’ve got a zinger coming.” Let’s see.
Edwards: “The Vice-President suggests that we have the same coalition we had in the first Gulf War. Regardless of what he says, this has cost this country $200B and we have taken 90% of the casualties.” That’s his zinger?? Cheney counters with “There’s what they do. They won’t recognize the enormous contribution that the Iraqis are contributing in lives and economics to their own cause. It’s their country, and they are making enormous sacrifices and contributions.” Point: Cheney.
9:35 Cheney is talking about Zarqawi and how long he’s been in Baghdad. Pretty powerful defusing of Edwards argument.
9:36 Gwen Ifill: Back in 1991 when you were still CEO of Halliburton…” Oh, please. Stamp liberal on your forehead and call it the Bill Maher Hour because that was completely uncalled for. Would she have said to Edwards “Back in 1987, when you were still chasing ambulances…”? Why was it ok for Halliburton to win a no-bid contract under Clinton to do essentially the same thing in Yugoslavia that they’re now doing in Iraq? I say again: how do 2 obvious liberals get to not only moderate the first 2 debates but also choose the questions? Are they going to even things out by allowing Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to moderate the next 2 debates? Where’s Edward R. Murrow, or at least Ted Koppel?
9:39 Edwards is now trying to draw parallels between Enron and Halliburton. That’s just disingenuous. To his debating credit, Edwards is smart enough to know that most people won’t research to find out the truth about Halliburton; they’ll take his word because everyone wants to believe that Halliburton and Dick Cheney are eeeevil. The Centrist Dude is being pushed to be a temporary Republican partisan.
9:44 Kudos to Cheney! He’s gone after Edwards and his senate record. “You’ve missed 33 of 36 Judiciary Committee meetings. Your hometown paper has started to call you Senator Gone. I’m the head of the Senate as Vice-President. The first time I ever met you was when I walked on stage tonight.” This has absolutely rattled Edwards into an “I am rubber, you are glue” debate. Edwards suddenly looks and sounds petulant and immature. Cheney is amazingly starting to eat Edwards alive.
9:47 As the moderator turns things to economics (no surprise, since she thinks this is where the Dems will shine & she wants to close) Cheney is talking about the burden of lawsuits and legislation in this country, as well as his other talking points.
9:49 “Cleveland has done lots of wonderful, important things, but it leads the country in poverty.” Really, John. Tell me those wonderful, important things Cleveland has done. I’m not saying it hasn’t, I’m saying he doesn’t know them. If Cheney knows any (other than the Rock and Roll Hall), this would be a good time to bring it up and ask Edwards to name some.
9:51 Edwards: “The cost of everything is going up.” Really? Amazing how Edwards knew to throw this out when Cheney couldn’t rebut due to debate rules. Do people buy this crap?
9:52 Gwen Ifill isn’t even close to being impartial. It is criminal the softball questions she throws at Edwards and the fastballs she throws at Cheney. The fact that Cheney is actually on the attack speaks volumes, though. Too bad Joe Beer Can is probably telling Mary how “them Dems gonna give it to them richies.” Fortunately, Joe doesn’t vote often and neither does Mary.
9:55 Cheney: “Small businesses create over 90% of new jobs in this country. They want to tax anyone making $200,000 a year or more, which are largely small business owners. Taxing small businesses is the wrong way to go in this country. The Senator during the Democratic debates said that his current partner’s plan would kill the economy.”
10:00 Edwards is doing something very smart by including Dick Cheney with himself as not believing that a Gay Marriage Amendment is a good idea. Cheney doesn’t take the bait, and just thanks Edwards for his kind words about his family and his daughter.
10:02 Gwen tries to bait Cheney with getting into a dogfight about whether John Edwards is endemic of the lawsuit problem in this country. Cheney recuses himself by saying he’s not familiar with Edwards’s cases. He is one smart hombre, regardless of what you think of him and his policies. Republicans should think it’s a shame that he’s not considering the presidency.
10:04 Edwards: “Let me say I am proud of my record for families against big insurance companies… But we do have too many lawsuits in this country.” Smart way to deflect and connect.
10:07 Edwards: “The malpractice part is ½ of 1% of the costs in this country, and we have double-digit inflation in health care costs.” Cheney: “We think that malpractice costs are a big problem in this country and we seriously need tort reform.” He goes on to talk about an airplane mfg in MN that could hire more people except that they have to pay so much in insurance (non-health care, of course). He talks about other things I’ll read in tomorrow’s transcripts because he’s bullet-pointing them too fast to type. Cheney really has a command of the facts. Edwards retort is to go back to Halliburton.. Again, point Cheney
10:11 Gwen asks a pointed question about the government’s failing in AIDS in this country. She is so partisan that I can now predict (as the Conservative Wife has so decently pointed out) that she will never, ever host anything like this again. Why doesn’t she just stand up and say “I want the Democrats to win!”
10:12 Edwards: “We think we should be spending double what we are in Africa to fight AIDS, and we should also be taking care of what is going on in Sudan (Darfur).” Uh…how do you propose to fund that, Mr. Edwards?
10:15: Edwsrds: “A long resume doesn’t a good record make.” Another line everyone knew was coming. And Edwards gives simplistic answers on what he would do.
10:16 Cheney: “You want me to answer questions about his (Edwards) qualifications? When President Bush asked me to sign on last election, it wasn’t because we needed to carry Wyoming, it’s because he wanted me to be a part of the team. He also knew that I had no political aspirations to be the President, and I wasn’t beholden to some Precinct Committeeman in Iowa.” Edwards is again rattled.
10:22 Gwen asks a stupid question with a stupid rule: “Don’t use your running mate’s name and talk about the differences between you and your opponent.” This is some stupid playground game by Gwen. Edwards can’t do it. The Conservative Wife thinks it makes Edwards look like a puppet instead of a member of the team. I think Gwen Ifill is a high school cub reporter posing as a journalist.
10:24 Edwards is fumbling. I wonder if he’s ever been this rattled. He’s good at trying to hide it, but you listen to him now vs. what he said at the beginning: he’s using phrases and pauses to give himself time to think, he’s making grammatical mistakes. Cheney is just cool and composed. I’m 0-2 in predicting what would happen in each debate. The American public who watched is going to come away saying “Edwards isn’t ready to lead.” Of the 4 people in this campaign, Dick Cheney is far and away the most in control and has the best grasp of the issues.
10:28 Gwen is now lost. “Senator Edwards, you have 30 seconds.” Edwards is thrown because he’s not supposed to have it. 15 seconds in, Ifill realizes it too and says “I’m sorry that you had an additional 15 seconds.” Gwen, meet Phil Luckett. He’s no longer an NFL referee, and you will never again moderate a debate.
10:32 Edwards: “We believe that we should allow imports of drugs from Canada. They’re against it because they’re with the drug companies.” Do you realize what this will do to our economy, you dumb ass?
10:34 Edwards closing statement is talking about “the light going out in America” and the “empty chair by the table.” Where’s Tiny Tim? Does this guy live in reality? As the Conservative Wife says, “This is so obsequious.” Yes it is.
10:35 Cheney’s closing statement: “I’ve worked for 4 presidents and watched 2 up close, and I know there’s no such thing as a routine day at the Oval Office.” He gives the NeoCon line and says “This is the challenge of our generation.” Wow.
POST DEBATE
Andrea Mitchell – I think that Dick Cheney did a great job of putting Edwards in his place, saying “I didn’t meet you before tonight.”
Ron Reagan – “There was a stature gap between them, but I’m not sure the public will see this.” HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh…you partisan, you.
Joe Scarborough: “Cheney obliterated Edwards. And he got it on domestic issues.”
Chris Matthews: “Edwards would take a squirt at Cheney, and then Cheney would come back with a howitzer.”
Tom Brokaw: “Dick Cheney was, as I have always seen in my years of covering him, extremely well-prepared. I liken him to George Foreman who shuffles across the ring and then unleashes a powerful blow when you aren’t expecting it. Cheney had any number of sound bite lines that will be repeated over the rest of the campaigns.”
Brian Williams is talking about fact-checking, & they’re going to show things that contradict. Predictably, the first thing they’re trying to show is Cheney contradicting himself. Unfortunately, the clip they show doesn’t contradict what Cheney had to say. Now they’re going after Edwards talking about the contract to Halliburton. They’re now going to say the same things that the few who checked knew: Halliburton was the only company with infrastructure to do the job in Iraq.
FINAL NOTE
The online voting poll is heavily skewed to Edwards, so much so that there is obviously some sort of planned Democratic trick going on. The MSNBC guys know this, too, as they are already making snide remarks about the Democrats obviously getting the word out to go vote for Edwards no matter what. No matter; anyone who paid attention or didn’t already have their mind made up will see what happened, just as they did on Thursday.
PRE-DEBATE (As before via MSNBC)
9:16 Joe Scarborough – “The Republicans are hoping that Edwards talks about Cheney and Halliburton, because that’s attacking the #2 guy. Cheney is going after Kerry. Edwards isn’t going to make any more scar tissue on Cheney.”
9:22 Ron Reagan, Jon Meachem (the Newseek guy) and Joe Scarborough all say that if it’s a “tie” that Edwards win. I find that interesting.
9:50 All predictions are that Edwards goes after Cheney for his involvement in Iraq and Cheney goes after Edwards for not being up to the task to hold the VP or presidency. It’s just fascinating how little all of these people seem to think of Edwards as a debater. I have a knee-jerk reaction against Edwards the politician, but he is used to public arguing. Don’t they have the debate thing backwards?
9:53 There’s an anti-Cheney sign behind the MSNBC desk that says “Leave no billionaire behind.” Have they looked at the bank accounts of Kerry and Edwards lately?
9:57 Chris Matthews: “You’re not supposed to bring in notes, but they can bring in memorized lines & write them down! Look at these two!” No doubt, the flurry of notes 4 minutes before the opening bell is quite astonishing.
DEBATE
NOTE: Since I’m typing in real time, some of the quotes may be off by a word or two. Don’t quote me; check the transcripts.
9:00 Edwards flashes a smile at his introduction. The Conservative Wife has already barfed.
9:01 How do two liberal moderators from NPR get the job in both debates so far, and get to choose the material? Who is this Gwen Ifill, other than Jim Lehrer’s cohort? Gee, how do you think she’s going to skew this?
9:03 Cheney is spouting the NeoCon line immediately. “We had to establish democracies in these places where state-sponsored terrorism was occurring.” 1000 miles away, I can hear the Liberal Colorado Friend retching.
9:09 Edwards says again that “we had Osama bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora.” He might be in trouble here repeating what Kerry said about “outsourcing to Afghan warlords who were working with bin Laden a few weeks ago.” It makes him sound like a puppet, and that scenario is also questionable in its accuracy. He also sounds like a lawyer. “Listen to what the Vice-President says because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein & bin Laden.”
9:10 Cheney sees the opening: ‘The Senator has his facts wrong. This is what I said.” He just made mincemeat of Edwards to anyone that’s listening. Edwards should have known better. And, Cheney changes his tack to go after Kerry, not Edwards. Very smart.
9:13 Cheney talking about democracy in Afghanistan and how democracy will change the region. Edwards comes back to the “outsourcing the job to Afghan warlords.” Edwards is good at changing the subject to the place he wants to keep the focus. Even if Cheney actually eats him up on facts, Edwards looks like he’s going to hold his own. This one is shaping up to a draw, where the only people that won’t think so are the partisans.
9:16 Cheney: “20 years ago I was an observer in El Salvador and the drive for democracy was so great that they are so much better off.” Wow. El Salvadorians everywhere cheer at being recognized once every 20 years.
9:17 Edwards talking about how Iran & North Korea are greater threats now than they were 4 years ago. Gwen Ifill’s next question should be about what he is going to do about this. But it won’t be. She’s partisan, she’s not a credible journalist, and she doesn’t want to focus on Edwards fudging.
9:19 Edwards: “We’ve taken 90% of the casualties in Iraq, and we’re at 200 billion dollars and counting.” Cheney jumps on that immediately and talks about the Iraqi casualties (not civilians, but the Iraqi police that are working with us), & the number being $120 billion, of which a large chunk has gone to Afghanistan. Smart, quick answer. Cheney somehow makes Edwards look like a kid arguing with his dad when his dad has all the facts. It doesn’t even matter who’s actually correct.
9:22 Cheney: “I’m not challenging John Kerry’s patriotism. I’m questioning his judgement.” This is a heavyweight fight with 2 guys like Rocky Marciano and Mike Tyson going toe-to-toe. They can both take a lot of hits, and no one’s likely to get knocked down, much les knocked out.
9:24 Cheney just threw Edwards by talking about why Kerry changed his Iraq vote. “Howard Dean was ahead as an anti-war candidate & his team decided they needed to change his stance.” Edwards did a good job in redirecting, but he was for a moment really thrown. Don’t know why I think so but I don’t think most people will likely catch that.
9:25 Ahh…Edwards plays the Halliburton card 25 minutes in. Cheney doesn’t seem to be taking the bait. Cheney: “These are 2 guys who were for the war when the polls were good and against the war when the polls were bad.” “Oof!” says Edwards inwardly.
9:27 Edwards: “The (administration) didn’t just reject the allies leading up to the war, they rejected them in the reconstruction.” Wow…that’s putting a spin on it. Yes, if you’re naïve enough to actually think that France and Russia were potential allies in Iraq, they did indeed keep them out of reconstruction. Ahh…here comes the “body armor” statement that everyone knew was coming. Somehow, when the press has lines verbatim ahead of time those just don’t resonate.
9:30 Edwards seems to see something in what Cheney just said: he’s got this smirk on his face that I haven’t seen that seems to say “I’ve got a zinger coming.” Let’s see.
Edwards: “The Vice-President suggests that we have the same coalition we had in the first Gulf War. Regardless of what he says, this has cost this country $200B and we have taken 90% of the casualties.” That’s his zinger?? Cheney counters with “There’s what they do. They won’t recognize the enormous contribution that the Iraqis are contributing in lives and economics to their own cause. It’s their country, and they are making enormous sacrifices and contributions.” Point: Cheney.
9:35 Cheney is talking about Zarqawi and how long he’s been in Baghdad. Pretty powerful defusing of Edwards argument.
9:36 Gwen Ifill: Back in 1991 when you were still CEO of Halliburton…” Oh, please. Stamp liberal on your forehead and call it the Bill Maher Hour because that was completely uncalled for. Would she have said to Edwards “Back in 1987, when you were still chasing ambulances…”? Why was it ok for Halliburton to win a no-bid contract under Clinton to do essentially the same thing in Yugoslavia that they’re now doing in Iraq? I say again: how do 2 obvious liberals get to not only moderate the first 2 debates but also choose the questions? Are they going to even things out by allowing Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to moderate the next 2 debates? Where’s Edward R. Murrow, or at least Ted Koppel?
9:39 Edwards is now trying to draw parallels between Enron and Halliburton. That’s just disingenuous. To his debating credit, Edwards is smart enough to know that most people won’t research to find out the truth about Halliburton; they’ll take his word because everyone wants to believe that Halliburton and Dick Cheney are eeeevil. The Centrist Dude is being pushed to be a temporary Republican partisan.
9:44 Kudos to Cheney! He’s gone after Edwards and his senate record. “You’ve missed 33 of 36 Judiciary Committee meetings. Your hometown paper has started to call you Senator Gone. I’m the head of the Senate as Vice-President. The first time I ever met you was when I walked on stage tonight.” This has absolutely rattled Edwards into an “I am rubber, you are glue” debate. Edwards suddenly looks and sounds petulant and immature. Cheney is amazingly starting to eat Edwards alive.
9:47 As the moderator turns things to economics (no surprise, since she thinks this is where the Dems will shine & she wants to close) Cheney is talking about the burden of lawsuits and legislation in this country, as well as his other talking points.
9:49 “Cleveland has done lots of wonderful, important things, but it leads the country in poverty.” Really, John. Tell me those wonderful, important things Cleveland has done. I’m not saying it hasn’t, I’m saying he doesn’t know them. If Cheney knows any (other than the Rock and Roll Hall), this would be a good time to bring it up and ask Edwards to name some.
9:51 Edwards: “The cost of everything is going up.” Really? Amazing how Edwards knew to throw this out when Cheney couldn’t rebut due to debate rules. Do people buy this crap?
9:52 Gwen Ifill isn’t even close to being impartial. It is criminal the softball questions she throws at Edwards and the fastballs she throws at Cheney. The fact that Cheney is actually on the attack speaks volumes, though. Too bad Joe Beer Can is probably telling Mary how “them Dems gonna give it to them richies.” Fortunately, Joe doesn’t vote often and neither does Mary.
9:55 Cheney: “Small businesses create over 90% of new jobs in this country. They want to tax anyone making $200,000 a year or more, which are largely small business owners. Taxing small businesses is the wrong way to go in this country. The Senator during the Democratic debates said that his current partner’s plan would kill the economy.”
10:00 Edwards is doing something very smart by including Dick Cheney with himself as not believing that a Gay Marriage Amendment is a good idea. Cheney doesn’t take the bait, and just thanks Edwards for his kind words about his family and his daughter.
10:02 Gwen tries to bait Cheney with getting into a dogfight about whether John Edwards is endemic of the lawsuit problem in this country. Cheney recuses himself by saying he’s not familiar with Edwards’s cases. He is one smart hombre, regardless of what you think of him and his policies. Republicans should think it’s a shame that he’s not considering the presidency.
10:04 Edwards: “Let me say I am proud of my record for families against big insurance companies… But we do have too many lawsuits in this country.” Smart way to deflect and connect.
10:07 Edwards: “The malpractice part is ½ of 1% of the costs in this country, and we have double-digit inflation in health care costs.” Cheney: “We think that malpractice costs are a big problem in this country and we seriously need tort reform.” He goes on to talk about an airplane mfg in MN that could hire more people except that they have to pay so much in insurance (non-health care, of course). He talks about other things I’ll read in tomorrow’s transcripts because he’s bullet-pointing them too fast to type. Cheney really has a command of the facts. Edwards retort is to go back to Halliburton.. Again, point Cheney
10:11 Gwen asks a pointed question about the government’s failing in AIDS in this country. She is so partisan that I can now predict (as the Conservative Wife has so decently pointed out) that she will never, ever host anything like this again. Why doesn’t she just stand up and say “I want the Democrats to win!”
10:12 Edwards: “We think we should be spending double what we are in Africa to fight AIDS, and we should also be taking care of what is going on in Sudan (Darfur).” Uh…how do you propose to fund that, Mr. Edwards?
10:15: Edwsrds: “A long resume doesn’t a good record make.” Another line everyone knew was coming. And Edwards gives simplistic answers on what he would do.
10:16 Cheney: “You want me to answer questions about his (Edwards) qualifications? When President Bush asked me to sign on last election, it wasn’t because we needed to carry Wyoming, it’s because he wanted me to be a part of the team. He also knew that I had no political aspirations to be the President, and I wasn’t beholden to some Precinct Committeeman in Iowa.” Edwards is again rattled.
10:22 Gwen asks a stupid question with a stupid rule: “Don’t use your running mate’s name and talk about the differences between you and your opponent.” This is some stupid playground game by Gwen. Edwards can’t do it. The Conservative Wife thinks it makes Edwards look like a puppet instead of a member of the team. I think Gwen Ifill is a high school cub reporter posing as a journalist.
10:24 Edwards is fumbling. I wonder if he’s ever been this rattled. He’s good at trying to hide it, but you listen to him now vs. what he said at the beginning: he’s using phrases and pauses to give himself time to think, he’s making grammatical mistakes. Cheney is just cool and composed. I’m 0-2 in predicting what would happen in each debate. The American public who watched is going to come away saying “Edwards isn’t ready to lead.” Of the 4 people in this campaign, Dick Cheney is far and away the most in control and has the best grasp of the issues.
10:28 Gwen is now lost. “Senator Edwards, you have 30 seconds.” Edwards is thrown because he’s not supposed to have it. 15 seconds in, Ifill realizes it too and says “I’m sorry that you had an additional 15 seconds.” Gwen, meet Phil Luckett. He’s no longer an NFL referee, and you will never again moderate a debate.
10:32 Edwards: “We believe that we should allow imports of drugs from Canada. They’re against it because they’re with the drug companies.” Do you realize what this will do to our economy, you dumb ass?
10:34 Edwards closing statement is talking about “the light going out in America” and the “empty chair by the table.” Where’s Tiny Tim? Does this guy live in reality? As the Conservative Wife says, “This is so obsequious.” Yes it is.
10:35 Cheney’s closing statement: “I’ve worked for 4 presidents and watched 2 up close, and I know there’s no such thing as a routine day at the Oval Office.” He gives the NeoCon line and says “This is the challenge of our generation.” Wow.
POST DEBATE
Andrea Mitchell – I think that Dick Cheney did a great job of putting Edwards in his place, saying “I didn’t meet you before tonight.”
Ron Reagan – “There was a stature gap between them, but I’m not sure the public will see this.” HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh…you partisan, you.
Joe Scarborough: “Cheney obliterated Edwards. And he got it on domestic issues.”
Chris Matthews: “Edwards would take a squirt at Cheney, and then Cheney would come back with a howitzer.”
Tom Brokaw: “Dick Cheney was, as I have always seen in my years of covering him, extremely well-prepared. I liken him to George Foreman who shuffles across the ring and then unleashes a powerful blow when you aren’t expecting it. Cheney had any number of sound bite lines that will be repeated over the rest of the campaigns.”
Brian Williams is talking about fact-checking, & they’re going to show things that contradict. Predictably, the first thing they’re trying to show is Cheney contradicting himself. Unfortunately, the clip they show doesn’t contradict what Cheney had to say. Now they’re going after Edwards talking about the contract to Halliburton. They’re now going to say the same things that the few who checked knew: Halliburton was the only company with infrastructure to do the job in Iraq.
FINAL NOTE
The online voting poll is heavily skewed to Edwards, so much so that there is obviously some sort of planned Democratic trick going on. The MSNBC guys know this, too, as they are already making snide remarks about the Democrats obviously getting the word out to go vote for Edwards no matter what. No matter; anyone who paid attention or didn’t already have their mind made up will see what happened, just as they did on Thursday.
Friday, October 01, 2004
WHO WERE THOSE 2 GUYS?
Last night's debate was supposed to feature George W. Bush vs. John Kerry. Instead, we got "Insomnia Guy" vs. "Clear Concise Guy." My on-the-spot diary from last night:
PRE-DEBATE ON MSNBC
6:40 Tim Russert has already set the tone for Big Media: talk in non-partisan tones about what needs to happen, but have a look of panic and urgency on your face. I like Russert, but there’s no doubt where his political loyalty lies.
6:53 They’re arguing about the time limits for the debate questions. You know what? If you can’t articulate your point-of-view to the public in 2 minutes, you’re not fit to lead the country. Do you really think that Joe and Mary Beer Can can listen past 2 minutes and repeat the substance back?? Early prediction: Kerry isn’t going to gain ground, he’s going to LOSE ground. Bring on the landslide.
6:58 The Conservative Wife almost has a heart attack when I say “part of me wants to see Kerry smoke Bush in this race so I can believe in him.” After receiving a sound beating, I stand by the comment. Not that I expect it to happen.
7:05 Andrea Mitchell and Jack Nicholson’s version of The Joker from Batman….separated at birth. The Conservative Wife says this has nothing to do with her ability to comment on the news. True, but in the morning she’ll still wake up ugly.
7:09 They quote The Centrist Dude!!! “Kerry has to deliver a knockout blow tonight or he won’t beat the champ.” Ok…they didn’t quote me, but they at least stole my metaphor.
7:13 Who the hell is Tucker Askew?? He’s part of the Bush-Cheney team. He sounds like John Edwards as a televangelist. YEESH!
7:22 Ty Devine…Kerry Sr. Advisor. Who from the Kerry camp let this guy on TV? He’s a grease-head who speaks 50 miles per hour, which is the norm in Boston, but it doesn’t play well in a large part of the country. I am continually amazed at how massively incompetent Kerry’s team is.
7:32 Tim Russert: “There hasn’t been a close incumbent race since Woodrow Wilson. They either lose big or win big.” Ok…which way do you think this one will fall?
7:39 Chris Matthews is speaking into an SM-57! That’s a $50 microphone!
DEBATE BEGINS
8i:03 First question: I thought Kerry came out well…until I heard Bush. Bush is reasoned, even and speaks more slowly than Kerry. Period. You get a calming, reasoned, in control guy. It’s a huge disparity.
8:08 Smart comment by Kerry: “Bush outsourced the job of getting Osama Bin Laden to other warlords.”
8:10 Kerry’s talking about opium??? What the *#$%?? He actually can’t keep on topic. Bush will eat him up on rebuttal.
8:11 Yep. Bush says he decided on his own to go to the U.N. Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Kerry has, in chess terms, lost a tempo.
8:13 Kerry has an opening. Bush transposed Saddam for bin Laden. If Kerry has a single ad lib bone in his body, this is the time to use it.
8:14 Nope. Kerry missed the opportunity to say something like “I understand why the President confused bin Laden with Saddam. He also didn’t understand why one was more important than the other.” If I can do that on the fly, why can’t Kerry?
8:20 This is Kerry’s next opening. He suddenly looks confident, and Bush looks like he needs to refresh his notes. He’s playing into the hands of the critics who say “He’s using terrorism to cover for everything.” Bush is fumbling, he’s stumbling, and he’s vulnerable. Can Kerry take advantage?
8:23 Look at how long the cameras stay on the split screen (that they’re not even supposed to use) when Kerry is speaking. That’s unconscionable! B.M. once again being partisan.
Bush’s response says he’s regained himself.
8:33 Bush is now flustered. His answers are stuttering, where Kerry is controlled. It’s as if Bush has been exposed on something, though he hasn’t. Stand up for yourself, you pansy!
8:37 Kerry has taken the upper hand, no question.
8:41 Bush is now talking about a troop death vignette. Comes off as disingenuous to me, especially the Neo-Con lecture afterwards. The Conservative Wife has a different take. “That was pretty powerful.”
8:43 Kerry: “Never confuse the war with the warriors.” That’s a great line. Ahhh…but then he says that he’s got specifics for Iraq. And he doesn’t lay it out. You dumb ass. You’ve missed the single chance to lay it out and opened it up for Bush.
8:46 the 64MM question: Lehrer to Kerry: “Can you give us specifics for what you will do in Iraq?” I loved what Kerry had to say, but again he didn’t answer the question.
8:50 Bush: “The reason my opponent says insurgents are coming in is because they understand that this is the battleground. If we win, they lose.” Bush regains control.
8:53 Kerry: “They outsourced the job of finding Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who were just weeks earlier against us.” There’s the line that the press will pick up tomorrow.
8:57 Bush is talking about not joining the International Criminal Court. He’s lost Joe and Mary Beer Can. I didn’t think that was possible. He’s in trouble.
9:12 Bush has blown this debate. All he had to do was to be confident in his responses. He has failed to do that. Kudos to Kerry. Game On unless Bush can close this convincingly.
9:14 Here’s the thing: I listen to what Kerry is saying, and I have the distinct feeling that (as I hear Bush stumble again) he is saying what he believes we want to hear, not what he actually feels in his gut. That’s still a problem that he’ll have to overcome, which is why his winning this debate just makes it “game on” instead of “game over.”
9:18 Bush “Vladimir (Putin) and I have talked….” Oh, please. Call him Mr. Putin, but don’t show me how “presidential” you are because you know his first name.
9:22 Kerry: “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as your President.” Without listening to Bush’s closing argument, he has done his work to make this election a race.
9:25 Bush sounds phenomenal when he is quoting a script, as he does in his closing statement. (Shades of Reagan…except Reagan could ad lib.)
Jim Lehrer’s eyes freak the Conservative Wife out.
POST DEBATE
What’s interesting is that the Newsweek guy is defending Bush. “He’s tired, he comes off as tired of defending the same old thing.”
Joe Scarborough: “Don’t underestimate the President. He’s confounded everyone, including me, in the days after the debates. People say ‘he speaks like me’ and ‘I trust him.’” Could be.
9:13 Brian Williams: “We looked it up, and the President is right (about the numbers spent in Iraq)” Call this the post-CBS/Dan Rather effect.
10:25 Ok, she’s biased. But Karen Hughes made a better case for re-electing George Bush did than George Bush did. Who was coaching Bush? Fire them fast, banish them far.
PRE-DEBATE ON MSNBC
6:40 Tim Russert has already set the tone for Big Media: talk in non-partisan tones about what needs to happen, but have a look of panic and urgency on your face. I like Russert, but there’s no doubt where his political loyalty lies.
6:53 They’re arguing about the time limits for the debate questions. You know what? If you can’t articulate your point-of-view to the public in 2 minutes, you’re not fit to lead the country. Do you really think that Joe and Mary Beer Can can listen past 2 minutes and repeat the substance back?? Early prediction: Kerry isn’t going to gain ground, he’s going to LOSE ground. Bring on the landslide.
6:58 The Conservative Wife almost has a heart attack when I say “part of me wants to see Kerry smoke Bush in this race so I can believe in him.” After receiving a sound beating, I stand by the comment. Not that I expect it to happen.
7:05 Andrea Mitchell and Jack Nicholson’s version of The Joker from Batman….separated at birth. The Conservative Wife says this has nothing to do with her ability to comment on the news. True, but in the morning she’ll still wake up ugly.
7:09 They quote The Centrist Dude!!! “Kerry has to deliver a knockout blow tonight or he won’t beat the champ.” Ok…they didn’t quote me, but they at least stole my metaphor.
7:13 Who the hell is Tucker Askew?? He’s part of the Bush-Cheney team. He sounds like John Edwards as a televangelist. YEESH!
7:22 Ty Devine…Kerry Sr. Advisor. Who from the Kerry camp let this guy on TV? He’s a grease-head who speaks 50 miles per hour, which is the norm in Boston, but it doesn’t play well in a large part of the country. I am continually amazed at how massively incompetent Kerry’s team is.
7:32 Tim Russert: “There hasn’t been a close incumbent race since Woodrow Wilson. They either lose big or win big.” Ok…which way do you think this one will fall?
7:39 Chris Matthews is speaking into an SM-57! That’s a $50 microphone!
DEBATE BEGINS
8i:03 First question: I thought Kerry came out well…until I heard Bush. Bush is reasoned, even and speaks more slowly than Kerry. Period. You get a calming, reasoned, in control guy. It’s a huge disparity.
8:08 Smart comment by Kerry: “Bush outsourced the job of getting Osama Bin Laden to other warlords.”
8:10 Kerry’s talking about opium??? What the *#$%?? He actually can’t keep on topic. Bush will eat him up on rebuttal.
8:11 Yep. Bush says he decided on his own to go to the U.N. Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Kerry has, in chess terms, lost a tempo.
8:13 Kerry has an opening. Bush transposed Saddam for bin Laden. If Kerry has a single ad lib bone in his body, this is the time to use it.
8:14 Nope. Kerry missed the opportunity to say something like “I understand why the President confused bin Laden with Saddam. He also didn’t understand why one was more important than the other.” If I can do that on the fly, why can’t Kerry?
8:20 This is Kerry’s next opening. He suddenly looks confident, and Bush looks like he needs to refresh his notes. He’s playing into the hands of the critics who say “He’s using terrorism to cover for everything.” Bush is fumbling, he’s stumbling, and he’s vulnerable. Can Kerry take advantage?
8:23 Look at how long the cameras stay on the split screen (that they’re not even supposed to use) when Kerry is speaking. That’s unconscionable! B.M. once again being partisan.
Bush’s response says he’s regained himself.
8:33 Bush is now flustered. His answers are stuttering, where Kerry is controlled. It’s as if Bush has been exposed on something, though he hasn’t. Stand up for yourself, you pansy!
8:37 Kerry has taken the upper hand, no question.
8:41 Bush is now talking about a troop death vignette. Comes off as disingenuous to me, especially the Neo-Con lecture afterwards. The Conservative Wife has a different take. “That was pretty powerful.”
8:43 Kerry: “Never confuse the war with the warriors.” That’s a great line. Ahhh…but then he says that he’s got specifics for Iraq. And he doesn’t lay it out. You dumb ass. You’ve missed the single chance to lay it out and opened it up for Bush.
8:46 the 64MM question: Lehrer to Kerry: “Can you give us specifics for what you will do in Iraq?” I loved what Kerry had to say, but again he didn’t answer the question.
8:50 Bush: “The reason my opponent says insurgents are coming in is because they understand that this is the battleground. If we win, they lose.” Bush regains control.
8:53 Kerry: “They outsourced the job of finding Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who were just weeks earlier against us.” There’s the line that the press will pick up tomorrow.
8:57 Bush is talking about not joining the International Criminal Court. He’s lost Joe and Mary Beer Can. I didn’t think that was possible. He’s in trouble.
9:12 Bush has blown this debate. All he had to do was to be confident in his responses. He has failed to do that. Kudos to Kerry. Game On unless Bush can close this convincingly.
9:14 Here’s the thing: I listen to what Kerry is saying, and I have the distinct feeling that (as I hear Bush stumble again) he is saying what he believes we want to hear, not what he actually feels in his gut. That’s still a problem that he’ll have to overcome, which is why his winning this debate just makes it “game on” instead of “game over.”
9:18 Bush “Vladimir (Putin) and I have talked….” Oh, please. Call him Mr. Putin, but don’t show me how “presidential” you are because you know his first name.
9:22 Kerry: “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as your President.” Without listening to Bush’s closing argument, he has done his work to make this election a race.
9:25 Bush sounds phenomenal when he is quoting a script, as he does in his closing statement. (Shades of Reagan…except Reagan could ad lib.)
Jim Lehrer’s eyes freak the Conservative Wife out.
POST DEBATE
What’s interesting is that the Newsweek guy is defending Bush. “He’s tired, he comes off as tired of defending the same old thing.”
Joe Scarborough: “Don’t underestimate the President. He’s confounded everyone, including me, in the days after the debates. People say ‘he speaks like me’ and ‘I trust him.’” Could be.
9:13 Brian Williams: “We looked it up, and the President is right (about the numbers spent in Iraq)” Call this the post-CBS/Dan Rather effect.
10:25 Ok, she’s biased. But Karen Hughes made a better case for re-electing George Bush did than George Bush did. Who was coaching Bush? Fire them fast, banish them far.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
