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.
Friday, October 22, 2004
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.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
KERRY'S LAST STAND
John Kerry has one last chance to control his own destiny in the first Presidential debate later tonight. By now it's clear to all but only the most optimistic supporter that Kerry is both behind and in big trouble. (And for those of you that think differently, call me: I have a fresh round of swampland to sell you in Florida.) But he has one last chance to change the momentum with a big victory in the first Presidential debate tonight. Make no mistake: it has to be tonight, because the viewership will go way down for any future debates, absentee votes are being cast, and if there's no shift by tomorrow there will simply not be enough voters left to sway.
Because of this, Kerry can’t go into tonight to just “win” the debate any more than an up-and-coming heavyweight boxer can expect to win a decision in a closely-fought contest. Human nature works against him in several ways:
1) The majority of voters have made up their minds, and once people make a decision they tend to look for things to reinforce it, not change it.
2) The few remaining undecided and “leaning” voters know what they’re getting with Bush. If they hated him, they would already be in the Kerry camp. So they might as well be assumed to actually be leaning towards Bush. If it’s a tie in their minds, that’s where their votes will go.
3) Regardless of the reason, Kerry’s negative numbers are almost as high as Bush’s. He isn't going to get someone’s vote because they like him personally, as might happen with John Edwards. (Though for the life of me I can’t understand why Edwards gets such high likeability ratings.)
So if I were on Kerry’s coaching staff, here’s the gameplan that I would draw up:
-Keep it simple. If you feel like you need to explain the nuances of your answer, it’s a bad answer.
-Forget about Vietnam. The people who can’t let Vietnam go have already made up their minds. No one else cares, nor will they vote for or against you based on what you or Bush did in Vietnam.
-Do not underestimate your opponent. George Bush is already taking the Lou Holtz strategy by telling everyone what a great debater you are, and how he hopes to somehow hold his own. Don’t believe it. Bush may not be a classic debater, but he’s a clever one. He’s fooled a lot of people into thinking he’s a dumb ass. He’s not.
-Outline your plan for Iraq. Not a wish list, and not some diatribe that conjures up memories of Hillary Clinton's health care plan. Right now, there is not one person in this country who has an inkling on what you plan to do. Take a cue from the RNC: Bush outlined a plan for his second term. He didn’t give every specific detail about how it would be accomplished, but it did not come off as pie-in-the-sky either. (Except for how to pay for it.) This is the foreign policy debate! If you can’t articulate an Iraq plan that Joe and Mary Beer Can will be able to grasp you will be headed for the south end of a landslide.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t think his handlers appear smart enough to make leaps this basic and necessary. To use an NFL analogy, Kerry is being coached by the equivalent staff of Norv Turner, Dave Wanndstadt, Marty Morninwheg and Dennis Erickson. Too bad he’s Jay Fiedler instead of Joe Montana.
Because of this, Kerry can’t go into tonight to just “win” the debate any more than an up-and-coming heavyweight boxer can expect to win a decision in a closely-fought contest. Human nature works against him in several ways:
1) The majority of voters have made up their minds, and once people make a decision they tend to look for things to reinforce it, not change it.
2) The few remaining undecided and “leaning” voters know what they’re getting with Bush. If they hated him, they would already be in the Kerry camp. So they might as well be assumed to actually be leaning towards Bush. If it’s a tie in their minds, that’s where their votes will go.
3) Regardless of the reason, Kerry’s negative numbers are almost as high as Bush’s. He isn't going to get someone’s vote because they like him personally, as might happen with John Edwards. (Though for the life of me I can’t understand why Edwards gets such high likeability ratings.)
So if I were on Kerry’s coaching staff, here’s the gameplan that I would draw up:
-Keep it simple. If you feel like you need to explain the nuances of your answer, it’s a bad answer.
-Forget about Vietnam. The people who can’t let Vietnam go have already made up their minds. No one else cares, nor will they vote for or against you based on what you or Bush did in Vietnam.
-Do not underestimate your opponent. George Bush is already taking the Lou Holtz strategy by telling everyone what a great debater you are, and how he hopes to somehow hold his own. Don’t believe it. Bush may not be a classic debater, but he’s a clever one. He’s fooled a lot of people into thinking he’s a dumb ass. He’s not.
-Outline your plan for Iraq. Not a wish list, and not some diatribe that conjures up memories of Hillary Clinton's health care plan. Right now, there is not one person in this country who has an inkling on what you plan to do. Take a cue from the RNC: Bush outlined a plan for his second term. He didn’t give every specific detail about how it would be accomplished, but it did not come off as pie-in-the-sky either. (Except for how to pay for it.) This is the foreign policy debate! If you can’t articulate an Iraq plan that Joe and Mary Beer Can will be able to grasp you will be headed for the south end of a landslide.
Oh, and by the way, I don’t think his handlers appear smart enough to make leaps this basic and necessary. To use an NFL analogy, Kerry is being coached by the equivalent staff of Norv Turner, Dave Wanndstadt, Marty Morninwheg and Dennis Erickson. Too bad he’s Jay Fiedler instead of Joe Montana.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
WHY SENATORS MAKE BAD PRESIDENTS
Only 5 Presidents, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, and Lyndon Johnson were Senators before they were elected President. Of those Harding never held another elected position, and Truman only held a judgeship and the Vice-Presidency. Why?
Perhaps the reason lies in what makes a successful Senator: a diplomat. Unfortunately, “diplomat” and “leader” don’t make good bedfellows. Rare is the Senator that can a) strike the populous as a leader of the country, and b) can execute once they get there. History has not been kind to Harding or Lyndon Johnson, and the jury is out on Nixon and in some circles on Kennedy.
The point? John Kerry. He seems to have the makeup of a successful Senator: flexible, nuanced, a horse trader of sorts. Yet he doesn’t have what appears to be the makings of a good President: decisiveness and direction.
The Liberal Colorado Friend lamented a few days ago about the Democratic Party. “What happened to standing up for the little guy? That’s what the Democrats were always about. Instead, I have this eastern, blueblood, upper-crust pansy who seems to have absolutely no connection to the common man, and the guy that is connecting with them is another East Coast blueblood upper-crust pansy. One opted out of service, and the other took film of everything he did.”
Alas, I couldn’t agree more. Bush in a nose-holding landslide. Ahhh…shades of Nixon…the ex-Senator.
(Note to self: this one sounds like a true “blog” as opposed to an editorial. Must consult with the Conservative Wife.)
Perhaps the reason lies in what makes a successful Senator: a diplomat. Unfortunately, “diplomat” and “leader” don’t make good bedfellows. Rare is the Senator that can a) strike the populous as a leader of the country, and b) can execute once they get there. History has not been kind to Harding or Lyndon Johnson, and the jury is out on Nixon and in some circles on Kennedy.
The point? John Kerry. He seems to have the makeup of a successful Senator: flexible, nuanced, a horse trader of sorts. Yet he doesn’t have what appears to be the makings of a good President: decisiveness and direction.
The Liberal Colorado Friend lamented a few days ago about the Democratic Party. “What happened to standing up for the little guy? That’s what the Democrats were always about. Instead, I have this eastern, blueblood, upper-crust pansy who seems to have absolutely no connection to the common man, and the guy that is connecting with them is another East Coast blueblood upper-crust pansy. One opted out of service, and the other took film of everything he did.”
Alas, I couldn’t agree more. Bush in a nose-holding landslide. Ahhh…shades of Nixon…the ex-Senator.
(Note to self: this one sounds like a true “blog” as opposed to an editorial. Must consult with the Conservative Wife.)
Thursday, September 23, 2004
THE POWER OF THE MEDIA
So, you don't think that Big Media actually has much sway on you, and if they are so bold as to tell you how to think you're smart enough not to buy it? Then explain the latest NBC News/WSJ poll on the presidential race. It offers some interesting fodder for just how much Big Media skews people's opinions, even to the point where the public ignores logic and their own observations in favor of what B.M. is shoving down their throats.
The best example I see in this particular poll relates to people's perception of the economy. We can all recite what B.M. has been telling us for the past 2 years: Bush runs up deficits, jobs are being outsourced overseas, the economy is horrid…translation: we are all doomed unless a change is made. Fair enough, maybe even accurate. But let’s take look at the polling data. (And incidentally, I will e-mail the entire .pdf file to anyone that wants it; that way you can look beyond these excerpts and draw your own conclusions.)
NOTE: Everything in blue is taken from the poll. The number at the front of each question is where it was in order on the actual poll:
10d. I'm going to mention two sets of issues. Please tell me which set of issues is more important to you in deciding for whom you will vote in the presidential election?
Set A: Terrorism and social issues and values
Set B: The economy and health care
Set A/terrorism and values more important...........44
Set B/economy and health care more important....44
Both equally important...............................................11
Not sure .........................................................................1
This establishes that the economy is at least on equal par with terrorism as an election issue. B.M. has intimated for over 2 years that Bush is lousy with the handling of the economy. And, the polling data seems to back that up:
9a. Overall, do you think the country is better off or worse off than it was four years ago?
Better off................................................35
Worse off............................................... 55
No difference/about the same .............6
Not sure ..................................................4
21. Over the past twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?
Economy has gotten better.....................29
Economy has gotten worse.....................36
Economy has stayed about the same....34
Not sure......................................................1
14. Now I'd like you to compare George W. Bush and John Kerry on a few issues. For each one, please tell me whether you think that George W. Bush or John Kerry would be better on that issue. If you think that both would be equally good or that neither would be good on a particular issue, just say so:
Jobs and Unemployment
BUSH..........32%
KERRY.......48
EQUAL.......10
NEITHER....5
NOT SURE..5
The Federal Budget Deficit
BUSH...........28%
KERRY........45
EQUAL.........8
NEITHER....11
NOT SURE...8
So the public apparently agrees that Kerry would be better with the economy. But now, take a look at these 2 items:
22. During the next twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy will get better, get worse, or stay
about the same?
Economy will get better................... 43
Economy will get worse.....................13
Economy will stay about the same...33
Not sure.............................................. 11
23a. Would you say that you and your family are better off or worse off than you were four years ago?
Better off................................................44
Worse off ...............................................35
No difference/about the same .......... 20
Not sure....................................................1
How can this be? How can between approximately 65% of the people say that they are better off or holding their own AND believe things are getting better or staying consistent, yet also say in almost equal numbers how bad the economy is? Simple: B.M. has beat into their heads so much that the economy is awful and they're doomed that they actually buy it, despite their own personal observational and empirical evidence to the contrary!
There is plenty of polling data in the .pdf and we all know how easy it is to manipulate results if there is enough data to work with. I'm willing to listen to any of you who want to refute what I have to say. Keep in mind, though, this isn’t an indictment or an endorsement of any candidate or issue, but rather pointing out just how much influence we have allowed B.M., talk radio and others with an agenda to sway our thought process. To punctuate this further, note that NBC didn’t see fit to put their own poll on their site, opting instead to only give the readers their spin.
As thinking citizens of this country, we have to be more questioning and less gullible. And at some point, we have got to hold Big Media’s feet to the fire.
The best example I see in this particular poll relates to people's perception of the economy. We can all recite what B.M. has been telling us for the past 2 years: Bush runs up deficits, jobs are being outsourced overseas, the economy is horrid…translation: we are all doomed unless a change is made. Fair enough, maybe even accurate. But let’s take look at the polling data. (And incidentally, I will e-mail the entire .pdf file to anyone that wants it; that way you can look beyond these excerpts and draw your own conclusions.)
NOTE: Everything in blue is taken from the poll. The number at the front of each question is where it was in order on the actual poll:
10d. I'm going to mention two sets of issues. Please tell me which set of issues is more important to you in deciding for whom you will vote in the presidential election?
Set A: Terrorism and social issues and values
Set B: The economy and health care
Set A/terrorism and values more important...........44
Set B/economy and health care more important....44
Both equally important...............................................11
Not sure .........................................................................1
This establishes that the economy is at least on equal par with terrorism as an election issue. B.M. has intimated for over 2 years that Bush is lousy with the handling of the economy. And, the polling data seems to back that up:
9a. Overall, do you think the country is better off or worse off than it was four years ago?
Better off................................................35
Worse off............................................... 55
No difference/about the same .............6
Not sure ..................................................4
21. Over the past twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy has gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?
Economy has gotten better.....................29
Economy has gotten worse.....................36
Economy has stayed about the same....34
Not sure......................................................1
14. Now I'd like you to compare George W. Bush and John Kerry on a few issues. For each one, please tell me whether you think that George W. Bush or John Kerry would be better on that issue. If you think that both would be equally good or that neither would be good on a particular issue, just say so:
Jobs and Unemployment
BUSH..........32%
KERRY.......48
EQUAL.......10
NEITHER....5
NOT SURE..5
The Federal Budget Deficit
BUSH...........28%
KERRY........45
EQUAL.........8
NEITHER....11
NOT SURE...8
So the public apparently agrees that Kerry would be better with the economy. But now, take a look at these 2 items:
22. During the next twelve months, do you think that the nation's economy will get better, get worse, or stay
about the same?
Economy will get better................... 43
Economy will get worse.....................13
Economy will stay about the same...33
Not sure.............................................. 11
23a. Would you say that you and your family are better off or worse off than you were four years ago?
Better off................................................44
Worse off ...............................................35
No difference/about the same .......... 20
Not sure....................................................1
How can this be? How can between approximately 65% of the people say that they are better off or holding their own AND believe things are getting better or staying consistent, yet also say in almost equal numbers how bad the economy is? Simple: B.M. has beat into their heads so much that the economy is awful and they're doomed that they actually buy it, despite their own personal observational and empirical evidence to the contrary!
There is plenty of polling data in the .pdf and we all know how easy it is to manipulate results if there is enough data to work with. I'm willing to listen to any of you who want to refute what I have to say. Keep in mind, though, this isn’t an indictment or an endorsement of any candidate or issue, but rather pointing out just how much influence we have allowed B.M., talk radio and others with an agenda to sway our thought process. To punctuate this further, note that NBC didn’t see fit to put their own poll on their site, opting instead to only give the readers their spin.
As thinking citizens of this country, we have to be more questioning and less gullible. And at some point, we have got to hold Big Media’s feet to the fire.
Monday, September 20, 2004
IN PRAISE OF BLOGGERS
There’s a war going on internally. I have to admit that the Machiavellian side of me is thirsting for Dan Rather’s blood as an example of lousy, partisan journalism. He and CBS have been pushing forth an agenda for years that, regardless of your politics, is an insult to what journalism is supposed to be: impartial, fair, and balanced. Sadly, precious little of the media adheres to that criteria. We are in a code yellow: yellow journalism.
However, I did mention an internal war, and there is that other side: the side that’s embarrassed to watch the demise of true journalism. I suppose this is offset to a large degree because I'm proud to be in the blogging community. We the bloggers are now the ones who now are keeping the journalists honest, making a once-honorable-now-lazy-and-partisan profession have to re-examine itself for those journalistic principles that many of its reporters and editors have sadly lost.
Of course, bloggers aren’t subject to the same scrutiny that journalists are (or should be). Bloggers can, and do, write anything they want, no matter how outrageous. But this makes the whole Rather/CBS scandal even more stunning: “amateurs” are exposing a man and a network that so want to see Bush defeated that they skipped basic journalistic scrutiny and ran a story with so many holes in it that 30 Dutch boys couldn’t save it.
Bloggers have become the watchdogs of this lazy journalistic environment that we now live in. Their watchdog are others who read their columns and make public comments. And that’s as it should be. America is possibly coming to a new reality, where bloggers do the research that used to be done by ethical journalists, and are then checked by their readers. Unfortunately, those who continue to get their news solely from major networks and big city newspapers are the equivalent of dumb asses being led around by the nose.
However, I did mention an internal war, and there is that other side: the side that’s embarrassed to watch the demise of true journalism. I suppose this is offset to a large degree because I'm proud to be in the blogging community. We the bloggers are now the ones who now are keeping the journalists honest, making a once-honorable-now-lazy-and-partisan profession have to re-examine itself for those journalistic principles that many of its reporters and editors have sadly lost.
Of course, bloggers aren’t subject to the same scrutiny that journalists are (or should be). Bloggers can, and do, write anything they want, no matter how outrageous. But this makes the whole Rather/CBS scandal even more stunning: “amateurs” are exposing a man and a network that so want to see Bush defeated that they skipped basic journalistic scrutiny and ran a story with so many holes in it that 30 Dutch boys couldn’t save it.
Bloggers have become the watchdogs of this lazy journalistic environment that we now live in. Their watchdog are others who read their columns and make public comments. And that’s as it should be. America is possibly coming to a new reality, where bloggers do the research that used to be done by ethical journalists, and are then checked by their readers. Unfortunately, those who continue to get their news solely from major networks and big city newspapers are the equivalent of dumb asses being led around by the nose.
Sunday, September 12, 2004
IN PRAISE OF AUSTIN
I wasn’t searching for it, but I have found a place that still seems to understand the basic principles that the Democratic Party has forgotten: Austin, Texas.
For those who haven’t been there, here’s a brief snapshot: Austin's population is similar to Indianapolis, Nashville or Baltimore, yet is vastly different from any of those cities. For starters, there’s a mass transportation system that actually makes sense, with buses that are clean and run logical routes and are very easy for tourists to navigate. The city has kept a lot of green space instead of wall-to-wall buildings. There is an outpouring of support for independent businesses, typified by the movement to “Keep Austin Weird”: support the little guys instead of the Wal-Marts and retail chains. There is live music everywhere (Austin bills itself correctly as the “live music capital”); a large percentage of the live players are doing originals instead of cover tunes. And unlike Nashville, local residents come out to actually watch performers, and there’s an absence of the wannabes that cities like Nashville and Los Angeles seem to have on every other corner.
So what does this have to do with the Democrats? The reasons that Austin is such a hip, easy, safe place start here: people actually care about their neighbor, they don’t just pay lip service to helping the underdog, and they don’t throw money at everything thinking it will help. Maybe the key is that there’s a blend of Texas independence thrown in. Differing opinions aren’t seen as taboo or stupid if you can back them up, and not every single person or group is actually considered deserving to feed from the public trough. The net result is that Austiners believe that some people need a support network to achieve their dreams and are deserving of it…if they’re willing to work for it. The residents and local governments of Austin are prepared to help in those circumstances.
Contrast that with the current Democrats who, at least at the federal level, have become elitists that believe they can come down from the mountain and help the “little people” without any clue as to what the “little people” are even all about. No wonder the Hollywood Democrats are so enamored with the current incarnation: they’re kindred souls. And there don't seem to be any filters when it comes to the groups the Democrats claim to represent. They are equally likely to cry foul for a group just looking for space at the trough as for one who is actually aggrieved.
To be fair in this analogy, Austin isn't free of problems. Too many people still refuse the mass transit option in favor of clogging the roads. The city planners attempted to control sprawl by not putting in infrastructure in outlying areas, and it didn’t work. Now they will have to put in roads, sewers, etc. with residences and businesses already in place: much tougher & more expensive. They’re going to have to figure out a balance between allowing large residences and corporate campuses to take desirable land and keeping that coveted green space for all.
But I have little doubt that most of these will become blips because the city and residents will find ways to grow and thrive without losing the sense of who they are and what Austin is all about. I’d love to think that federal Democrats could spend a few weeks there and maybe learn a little bit. Alas, I think that too many of them are so out of touch they wouldn’t even see the things at street level that the rest of us can enjoy.
For those who haven’t been there, here’s a brief snapshot: Austin's population is similar to Indianapolis, Nashville or Baltimore, yet is vastly different from any of those cities. For starters, there’s a mass transportation system that actually makes sense, with buses that are clean and run logical routes and are very easy for tourists to navigate. The city has kept a lot of green space instead of wall-to-wall buildings. There is an outpouring of support for independent businesses, typified by the movement to “Keep Austin Weird”: support the little guys instead of the Wal-Marts and retail chains. There is live music everywhere (Austin bills itself correctly as the “live music capital”); a large percentage of the live players are doing originals instead of cover tunes. And unlike Nashville, local residents come out to actually watch performers, and there’s an absence of the wannabes that cities like Nashville and Los Angeles seem to have on every other corner.
So what does this have to do with the Democrats? The reasons that Austin is such a hip, easy, safe place start here: people actually care about their neighbor, they don’t just pay lip service to helping the underdog, and they don’t throw money at everything thinking it will help. Maybe the key is that there’s a blend of Texas independence thrown in. Differing opinions aren’t seen as taboo or stupid if you can back them up, and not every single person or group is actually considered deserving to feed from the public trough. The net result is that Austiners believe that some people need a support network to achieve their dreams and are deserving of it…if they’re willing to work for it. The residents and local governments of Austin are prepared to help in those circumstances.
Contrast that with the current Democrats who, at least at the federal level, have become elitists that believe they can come down from the mountain and help the “little people” without any clue as to what the “little people” are even all about. No wonder the Hollywood Democrats are so enamored with the current incarnation: they’re kindred souls. And there don't seem to be any filters when it comes to the groups the Democrats claim to represent. They are equally likely to cry foul for a group just looking for space at the trough as for one who is actually aggrieved.
To be fair in this analogy, Austin isn't free of problems. Too many people still refuse the mass transit option in favor of clogging the roads. The city planners attempted to control sprawl by not putting in infrastructure in outlying areas, and it didn’t work. Now they will have to put in roads, sewers, etc. with residences and businesses already in place: much tougher & more expensive. They’re going to have to figure out a balance between allowing large residences and corporate campuses to take desirable land and keeping that coveted green space for all.
But I have little doubt that most of these will become blips because the city and residents will find ways to grow and thrive without losing the sense of who they are and what Austin is all about. I’d love to think that federal Democrats could spend a few weeks there and maybe learn a little bit. Alas, I think that too many of them are so out of touch they wouldn’t even see the things at street level that the rest of us can enjoy.
Monday, September 06, 2004
CONSPIRACY THEORY PREDICTIONS
Now that the conventions are over, the Spinmeisters will be in high gear. And given their normal proclivity for such things, look for the right-wing talk show hosts to begin a new round of Conspiracy Theories, and maybe even some of the liberals will have their own wacko scenarios.
Let me make very clear that I don't believe in the below conspiracy theories. (For starters, our government has to be the worst in the world at keeping secrets.) Nonetheless, I would wager on some versions of these being floated out by the nutcase talk-show faction, if Vegas is giving odds:
1) CLINTON'S SURGERY IS A RUSE
The motive: Bill Clinton wants Kerry to lose so Hillary can run in 2008.
The evidence: the heart surgery came out of nowhere, and everyone was trying to keep all details a secret; Clinton's support of Wesley Clark late in the primary campaign.
The spin: The Clintons were in a Catch-22: campaigning for Kerry and helping him win would negate any chance of Hillary running in 4 years, but not campaigning would lower the Clinton's stock (especially Hillary's) as selfish, non-team players. How else do you explain Clinton's sudden support of the ultra-weak Wesley Clark after Kerry was already steaming towards the nomination? So, the spin will go, that the Clintons want to do as little as possible in the hopes that it won't be enough to change the outcome of the election but will still be seen as being on board.
So, Bill shows up at the DNC, makes a marvelous speech. Dems get all excited about Bill campaigning. Then, immediately following the RNC, when it's apparent that the Republicans have all the momentum, Bill mysteriously has chest pains and is whisked away to a New York hospital for heart surgery. The word from the Clinton camp already is months of rest, no visitors, blah, blah, blah. In other words, Bill is off the hook! 2008 slogans already underway! With Hill and Bill we surely will!
2) CHECHNYAN TERRORIST ACTS ARE DESIGNED TO BRING THE U.S. TO RUSSIA'S AID
The motive: Russia wants to drag the U.S. into supporting its conflict with Chechnya.
The evidence: 2 plane crashes and an elementary school standoff come right on the heels of the RNC. The Russian government astonishingly lets the state-run press criticize the administration's handling, so as to get their citizens ready to fight.
The spin: Russians have had their problems with Chechnya for a decade, but because of years of hostility towards the Soviet Union the U.S. and most of Europe have been unsympathetic. Likewise, when Russia opposed the Iraq conflict the U.S. drew further away. But Putin and Bush are friendly. Bush could use help from Russia, and the Russians could be helped by U.S. support as well, even if it's just turning a blind eye to how they deal with Chechnya.
The planes that went down have been completely devoid of outside sources confirming what happened. Likewise, the news of the taking of the schoolyard and the subsequent loss of 350 (and counting) hostages and children have been filtered completely through the Russian news sources. And, with one exception, all of the terrorists who stormed the school have been killed, so no one can spill the beans about what really happened.
Americans now see images of Russians sorrowed and angered, eerily similar to what we went through after 9/11. Tass, which is run by the state government, openly critcizes the government for the slow handling of the situation. All reports from Interfax (a British puppet, the Spinmeisters will say) and Tass point to Wahabi Muslim extremists. Since these reports undoubtedly are orchestrated by Putin he must have a goal. And it's simple: to draw America's sympathy. In the long run, they'll end their rhetoric and help us with new information about our enemies and guarantee us oil. In return, we help them by not blowing the whistle on the heavy-handed way they are about to deal with the Chechnyans.
3) BIN LADEN CAPTURED & BEING HELD AS INSURANCE
The motive: News of Osama bin Laden's capture at the right time would go insure a Bush victory.
The evidence: There has been little news coming out of Afghanistan for months, and the Pakistani Army seems to have rounded up everyone else associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their area. Things are too quiet and peaceful for bin Laden to still be around.
The spin: The U.S. captured bin Laden months ago, but with the capture of Saddam Hussein hitting the news the Bush Administration decided to keep bin Laden's snaring a secret until a later date. They will release the news somewhere in mid-to-late October to further ensure that Bush wins the election. If Osama was still around, there would be new videos, audio messages, or coordinated attacks in Afghanistan or even Pakistan. However, everything has been peaceful. The Afghans are preparing to vote. The Pakistan government is cozying up to the U.S. This is all hard to believe unless bin Laden has actually been taken out of the equation.
Whether or not any of these are floated about remains to be seen. But you can be reasonably sure that some sort of conspiracy theories will hit the airwaves soon. That, unfortunately, is the state of our media and the people who swallow it whole.
Let me make very clear that I don't believe in the below conspiracy theories. (For starters, our government has to be the worst in the world at keeping secrets.) Nonetheless, I would wager on some versions of these being floated out by the nutcase talk-show faction, if Vegas is giving odds:
1) CLINTON'S SURGERY IS A RUSE
The motive: Bill Clinton wants Kerry to lose so Hillary can run in 2008.
The evidence: the heart surgery came out of nowhere, and everyone was trying to keep all details a secret; Clinton's support of Wesley Clark late in the primary campaign.
The spin: The Clintons were in a Catch-22: campaigning for Kerry and helping him win would negate any chance of Hillary running in 4 years, but not campaigning would lower the Clinton's stock (especially Hillary's) as selfish, non-team players. How else do you explain Clinton's sudden support of the ultra-weak Wesley Clark after Kerry was already steaming towards the nomination? So, the spin will go, that the Clintons want to do as little as possible in the hopes that it won't be enough to change the outcome of the election but will still be seen as being on board.
So, Bill shows up at the DNC, makes a marvelous speech. Dems get all excited about Bill campaigning. Then, immediately following the RNC, when it's apparent that the Republicans have all the momentum, Bill mysteriously has chest pains and is whisked away to a New York hospital for heart surgery. The word from the Clinton camp already is months of rest, no visitors, blah, blah, blah. In other words, Bill is off the hook! 2008 slogans already underway! With Hill and Bill we surely will!
2) CHECHNYAN TERRORIST ACTS ARE DESIGNED TO BRING THE U.S. TO RUSSIA'S AID
The motive: Russia wants to drag the U.S. into supporting its conflict with Chechnya.
The evidence: 2 plane crashes and an elementary school standoff come right on the heels of the RNC. The Russian government astonishingly lets the state-run press criticize the administration's handling, so as to get their citizens ready to fight.
The spin: Russians have had their problems with Chechnya for a decade, but because of years of hostility towards the Soviet Union the U.S. and most of Europe have been unsympathetic. Likewise, when Russia opposed the Iraq conflict the U.S. drew further away. But Putin and Bush are friendly. Bush could use help from Russia, and the Russians could be helped by U.S. support as well, even if it's just turning a blind eye to how they deal with Chechnya.
The planes that went down have been completely devoid of outside sources confirming what happened. Likewise, the news of the taking of the schoolyard and the subsequent loss of 350 (and counting) hostages and children have been filtered completely through the Russian news sources. And, with one exception, all of the terrorists who stormed the school have been killed, so no one can spill the beans about what really happened.
Americans now see images of Russians sorrowed and angered, eerily similar to what we went through after 9/11. Tass, which is run by the state government, openly critcizes the government for the slow handling of the situation. All reports from Interfax (a British puppet, the Spinmeisters will say) and Tass point to Wahabi Muslim extremists. Since these reports undoubtedly are orchestrated by Putin he must have a goal. And it's simple: to draw America's sympathy. In the long run, they'll end their rhetoric and help us with new information about our enemies and guarantee us oil. In return, we help them by not blowing the whistle on the heavy-handed way they are about to deal with the Chechnyans.
3) BIN LADEN CAPTURED & BEING HELD AS INSURANCE
The motive: News of Osama bin Laden's capture at the right time would go insure a Bush victory.
The evidence: There has been little news coming out of Afghanistan for months, and the Pakistani Army seems to have rounded up everyone else associated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda in their area. Things are too quiet and peaceful for bin Laden to still be around.
The spin: The U.S. captured bin Laden months ago, but with the capture of Saddam Hussein hitting the news the Bush Administration decided to keep bin Laden's snaring a secret until a later date. They will release the news somewhere in mid-to-late October to further ensure that Bush wins the election. If Osama was still around, there would be new videos, audio messages, or coordinated attacks in Afghanistan or even Pakistan. However, everything has been peaceful. The Afghans are preparing to vote. The Pakistan government is cozying up to the U.S. This is all hard to believe unless bin Laden has actually been taken out of the equation.
Whether or not any of these are floated about remains to be seen. But you can be reasonably sure that some sort of conspiracy theories will hit the airwaves soon. That, unfortunately, is the state of our media and the people who swallow it whole.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
Bush Speech part 2: the aftermath
Continuing the Thursday night stream-of-consciousness diary. This was watching the Kerry-Edwards speech in Springfield, OH right after the RNC ended:
10:49pm – John Edwards is speaking in Springfield, Ohio. He’s a much better speaker than George Pataki. Yet, he still makes me feel like I need to bathe just for watching & listening.
10:53pm – John Kerry takes the stage. How stupid is this so-called intellectual and his campaign manager? No one is covering this except for MSNBC. That includes CNN, Fox News, PBS, and all of the major networks. Why would you make this speech right now when you’re competing against Bush’s speech? Why not wait 24 hours?
11:00pm – I can’t let this go. Kerry had the temerity to say the Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover who had lost jobs. What??? Gerald Ford?? Jimmy Carter?? Give me a break. The 70s were crappy on employment no matter what party you were from. Saying that no one since the 30s had “lost jobs” on their watch is so untrue that Kerry should be handcuffed now and led away. You know, here’s another thing. Kerry is wearing a wonderful suit coat and a reeeallly expensive shirt. He actually believes that by not wearing a tie no one will notice. Edwards is at least wearing a shirt & coat that look like he could be “one of us.” Kerry just doesn’t get it at any level. The Democrats have likely lost a very winnable election.
11:09pm – MSNBC has broken away. CNN has picked Kerry up. Back on MSNBC, Chris Matthews, who is no conservative, is giving up on the Democrats. “Democrats no longer have the numbers, and the Republicans are better at organizing and business.”
11:32pm – Ron Silver: “Bush gave a speech of moral clarity, which is what drives people mad. But we look back at the great speeches of our presidents and they’re all full of moral clarity.” Ahh….no shock here, “Convention Historian Doug Brinkley” is a friend of John Kerry’s who wrote a book about him. Doug Brinkley is telling us that this is Kerry's opening salvo of the campaign, and that historically this is where John Kerry shines: the last 60 days. The same sentiment is echoed by Terry McAuliffe, DNC chairman. No collusion there. What’s funny is that Ron Reagan, Jr (a definite liberal) just has this defeated look on his face while he’s interviewing these 2 guys.
11:40pm – Jeanine Garofolo has the best response: “The RNC videos and their platform don’t speak to me. I have no proof of this, but I feel like he’s lying to me.” Ron Silver has a good response to her: “You might not like the man, but if you read the 9/11 Commission report, he did not lie to you. He might have been misinformed, but he didn’t fabricate information.”
12:11am – Ron Silver and Ron Reagan, Jr are debating. My conservative friends think Ron Silver is a ridiculous left-winger. I’m beginning to think that Ron Silver and I are kindred souls. Joe Trippi has really undergone a makeover. He used to look exactly like the guy who would run Howard Dean’s campaign: unkempt, bad diet, no sleep. He now looks like every corporate executive. He’s done better than his former boss.
FRIDAY Sept 3rd
2 new pieces of information: Time shows the Prez now leading 52%-41% among likely voters. So much for the dead heat, at least for a brief period of time. And how's this for bad news: the latest unemployment stats show an increase in jobs of 144,000 in August, and that unemployment is down to 5.4%, it's lowest since October 2001. Kerry actually tried to spin that today by quibbling over the 6,000 difference (the original estimate was 150,000). So, let me get this straight: the Democrats have now abandoned the war criticisms, at least temporarily, and have picked this day to switch to focusing on domestic agenda.
Any candidate that clueless does not deserve to lead the country. Maybe the Dems will put up someone in 2008 that I can actually respect and vote for. I'm not holding my breath.
10:49pm – John Edwards is speaking in Springfield, Ohio. He’s a much better speaker than George Pataki. Yet, he still makes me feel like I need to bathe just for watching & listening.
10:53pm – John Kerry takes the stage. How stupid is this so-called intellectual and his campaign manager? No one is covering this except for MSNBC. That includes CNN, Fox News, PBS, and all of the major networks. Why would you make this speech right now when you’re competing against Bush’s speech? Why not wait 24 hours?
11:00pm – I can’t let this go. Kerry had the temerity to say the Bush is the first President since Herbert Hoover who had lost jobs. What??? Gerald Ford?? Jimmy Carter?? Give me a break. The 70s were crappy on employment no matter what party you were from. Saying that no one since the 30s had “lost jobs” on their watch is so untrue that Kerry should be handcuffed now and led away. You know, here’s another thing. Kerry is wearing a wonderful suit coat and a reeeallly expensive shirt. He actually believes that by not wearing a tie no one will notice. Edwards is at least wearing a shirt & coat that look like he could be “one of us.” Kerry just doesn’t get it at any level. The Democrats have likely lost a very winnable election.
11:09pm – MSNBC has broken away. CNN has picked Kerry up. Back on MSNBC, Chris Matthews, who is no conservative, is giving up on the Democrats. “Democrats no longer have the numbers, and the Republicans are better at organizing and business.”
11:32pm – Ron Silver: “Bush gave a speech of moral clarity, which is what drives people mad. But we look back at the great speeches of our presidents and they’re all full of moral clarity.” Ahh….no shock here, “Convention Historian Doug Brinkley” is a friend of John Kerry’s who wrote a book about him. Doug Brinkley is telling us that this is Kerry's opening salvo of the campaign, and that historically this is where John Kerry shines: the last 60 days. The same sentiment is echoed by Terry McAuliffe, DNC chairman. No collusion there. What’s funny is that Ron Reagan, Jr (a definite liberal) just has this defeated look on his face while he’s interviewing these 2 guys.
11:40pm – Jeanine Garofolo has the best response: “The RNC videos and their platform don’t speak to me. I have no proof of this, but I feel like he’s lying to me.” Ron Silver has a good response to her: “You might not like the man, but if you read the 9/11 Commission report, he did not lie to you. He might have been misinformed, but he didn’t fabricate information.”
12:11am – Ron Silver and Ron Reagan, Jr are debating. My conservative friends think Ron Silver is a ridiculous left-winger. I’m beginning to think that Ron Silver and I are kindred souls. Joe Trippi has really undergone a makeover. He used to look exactly like the guy who would run Howard Dean’s campaign: unkempt, bad diet, no sleep. He now looks like every corporate executive. He’s done better than his former boss.
FRIDAY Sept 3rd
2 new pieces of information: Time shows the Prez now leading 52%-41% among likely voters. So much for the dead heat, at least for a brief period of time. And how's this for bad news: the latest unemployment stats show an increase in jobs of 144,000 in August, and that unemployment is down to 5.4%, it's lowest since October 2001. Kerry actually tried to spin that today by quibbling over the 6,000 difference (the original estimate was 150,000). So, let me get this straight: the Democrats have now abandoned the war criticisms, at least temporarily, and have picked this day to switch to focusing on domestic agenda.
Any candidate that clueless does not deserve to lead the country. Maybe the Dems will put up someone in 2008 that I can actually respect and vote for. I'm not holding my breath.
Friday, September 03, 2004
Bush speech, Part 1
Yes...there will be a second part tomorrow. You think this is long...
I’m watching MSNBC because a) the major networks have eschewed all convention coverage to date, b) CNN is a cheerleader for Kerry, c) Fox News is a cheerleader for Bush, and d) PBS leans so left that they’re sorry that Nader can’t get coverage. So, my evening online diary:
8:10pm – Since I haven’t looked, I ask out loud who might be speaking before Bush. The Centrist Dudette postulates that it will be George Pataki, because “it would make the most sense to continue beating the 9/11 drum.” Sounds plausible.
8:14pm – Tim Russert & Tom Brokaw have already conceded that there will be a big bump for the Republicans and they have stolen the momentum. They talk about how Kerry and Edwards are going to campaign in Ohio tonight so that the Republicans can’t define them. Well…there’s the pro-Kerry media spin. Too bad it’s too late. Now they’re talking about how Kerry is so great at closing and using Iowa as an example. One problem with that, of course: Dean’s numbers were inflated and he was less electable than Kerry or Bush on their worst days. This reminds me of the line from the book ‘Bias’ as relayed to my by Conservative Friend Bird earlier this week; it is attributed to a high-ranking executive at CBS News a few days after the 1972 Presidential election: “I don’t understand how this happened. Everyone I know voted for McGovern.”
8:34pm – George Pataki will indeed introduce Bush. Let the drum beating continue.
8:36pm – Convention Historian Douglas Brinkley is speaking with Chris Matthews about what Bush needs to do. How do you get that gig: Convention Historian? It’s not like there’s a college degree for it. Douglas is saying what he thinks Bush needs to do, which is Media Code for “let me tell all the swing voters where Bush has failed to date.” I love the media; they have no clue just how biased they are.
8:38pm – Oh, my God…as Pataki is introduced the cameras show a shot of the New York delegates. And in the middle is…Jim Kelly, former Buffalo Bills QB. ACCCK!! I’m now voting for Kerry.
8:39pm – So Pataki opens with all of the good things that other states did for NYC after 9/11. Of course…they’re all swing states: Oregon, Iowa, & Pennsylvania. How gauche. I’m trying to convince the Centrist Dudette to continue watching for the comedy value. She’s not listening. Frankly, I’m too busy quelling the urge to barf.
8:43pm – I’m now noticing that if you look away from the TV, Pataki sounds almost exactly like Al Gore. God, please don’t let this man ever run for President. The networks are missing the boat in their fight to unseat Bush. They should be putting Pataki on TV, and people would vote Democratic in droves.
8:49pm – A shot of Guiliani in the crowd. He has this look contemptuous on his face that says “Please let Bush shoot this man when he steps to the podium.” The camera focuses on 2 female delegates with long, bleached hair, facelifts, and fake boobs. The oft-overlooked “Porn Stars for Bush.” Seeing it in print, maybe that one should have been obvious. Wow…5 black women in a row with cowboy hats on screaming “Four More Years!” See…it’s the party of inclusion. Pataki says “I’m a New Yorker.” NOOOOO!!
8:58pm – Thankfully, Pataki is done. Rudy Guiliani is hugging Ron Silver. Guess that says just how far away he and Pataki really are.
8:59pm – Joe Scarborough (the token MSNBC centrist) has a great comment: why would Kerry come out with his big speech in Ohio tonight when he is guaranteed to have to share front-page space with the President? Could it be because he’s a dumb ass? Why didn’t he do it a week ago? Or at this point wait until tomorrow when he'll have the headlines to himself? Oh, now Fred Thompson is doing the opening for the video on Bush. Time to get serious and pay attention. NOTE: A quick flip through the stations, and all of the major networks are steering clear of this, so that we can hear George Snuffleuppagas (ABC), Tim & Tom (Russert & Brokaw on NBC) and some gray-haired guy (CBS).
9:11pm – Bush takes the stage in arena rock fashion. Think there’s a significance to the time? (Probably not, it’s in New York.) The Centrist Dudette realizes that Dick Cheney looks like an overweight version of The Conservative Mississipian Friend. She also suggests that W. hasn’t found out his mother is actually a transvestite.
9:18pm – “Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.” I agree. So what’s with the Gay Marriage Amendment? “In our world and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.” My liberal friends recoil in horror at the Neo-Conservative reference.
9:21pm – "(Our institutions) were created for the worlds of yesterday, not the world of tomorrow.” This could be good if he gives specifics. “We will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” You’d think after 31 years we’d actually have done that. “We must protect small business owners from the frivolous lawsuits that drag down our economy.” I agree. I wish I could believe him on that one. “In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.” Ok…I haven’t heard that yet from a serious candidate. It won’t happen in 4 years, but I’m all for opening the dialog for a change. “We’ll increase funding for our community colleges.” Great idea, but that’s at odds with reducing federal spending, though. Ahhh…details, details.
9:26pm - “More than half the uninsured are small business workers and their families. In a new term, we must allow small businesses to join together to purchase insurace at the discounts available to big companies.” George, you now have my undivided attention. “I will insure that every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.” Again…how does that jibe with reducing federal spending? “We must pass medical liability reform now.” Take that, John Edwards. “We will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.” Rhetoric. This is more like a State of the Union speech.
The Centrist Dudette takes exception to an increased home ownership plan: “That’s right, George. You just need to keep building more and more Stack-A-Shacks.” (This is a C.D. code phrase for “cheap-ass condo.”)
9:32pm – Bush has gone into “I’m really a Democrat” mode. For someone who talks about cutting federal spending, he’s sure got a lot of places to add money. However, I have a difficult time disagreeing with his comments about continuing to reintroduce and hold students and teachers to testing standards. His line about the poor Georgia school that expects their students to succeed as the answer to “ the soft bigotry of low expectations”…brilliant. Someone tip the speech writer.
9:36pm – “Anyone who wants more information on my plans can find the details online.” Again…brilliant. The Centrist Dudette is majorly impressed by his ‘plainspeak’ in this address. Bush is picking apart what Kerry wants to roll back item by item. Very smart. Denzel Washington is in the crowd. I'm amazed the cameras haven’t focused on him before. Oh, wait…the networks don’t want to show celebrities supporting a Republican. How stupid of me.
9:39pm – “Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of charity and compassion….Because I believe in the union of a man and a woman deserves an honored place in our society... I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.” At least he’s smart enough to put all the religious crap in one paragraph. Ahh…quoting Kerry as saying “Ronald Reagan was 8 years of moral darkness” is another brilliant line.
9:42pm – Bush says he will never rest in how to better defend this country. The crowd cheers. Guiliani now looks like he’s thirsting for someone’s blood. “We are staying on the offensive, striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. And we’re working to advance liberty in the Middle East.” This brings a disruption in the convention by some young female. Bush acts like he's ignoring it, but he’s been shaken a bit. He’d have been better off if he had Guiliani’s or Reagan’s penchant for ad lib.
9:47pm – Now, Bush discusses Iraq. Another disruptor, another removal from the building. (Note to self: how did these people get in? Who’s the head of RNC Security?) Bush rolls with this one better. “We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East.” The Liberal Friends all look for hurl buckets. Al-Jazeera looks for a friendly, popular dictator. A side note: According to the Wall Street Journal a few days ago, Afghanistan has 9 million people. So far, 9.9 million have registered to vote. Bush says 10MM. Who's quibbling? All liberals should be happy that Afghans have apparently learned democracy from Democrat Richard Daley.
9:52pm -“…and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” No Vietnam comments here. Nosirreee, Bobby. In reference to Kerry’s vote on funding troops, and his subsequent explanation of ‘It’s complicated’, Bush says “There is nothing complicated when it comes to supporting our troops in battle.” “My opponent says our coalition is one of the coerced and bribed” and then goes on to name well-known western allies. Good line.
9:58pm – “(Our enemies) know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate.” My anti-NeoCon friends now have the dry heaves. “Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel.” And the flames are re-lit. But a bloc of Florida voters are now happier.
10:01pm – A jab at the New York Times about a 1946 editorial referring to Germany: “Maybe that person is still around writing editorials.” Quite funny, and appropriate. Bush followed it with “fortunately we had a resolute president named Truman.” Ooops…followed that up with “freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” Maybe the religious references are just my knee-jerk reaction, but I can't help but think that he could back off of it.
10:05pm – “Even when we disagree, you know where I stand.” The crux of the Bush presidency, and arguably the crux of any true leader. “People have to correct my English. I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger had to do it.” Best line of the night. “People look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called walking.” Ok, 2nd best line of the night. Bush is now talking about the military and his families and is actually tearing up. It’s either a glimpse into his real self, or a great acting job. I believe the former, and it has nothing to do with what he’s done, just his real feelings recalling people who have lost people he sent to die and they still support him. No matter who you are, I can’t imagine.
10:10pm – Bush is now paraphrasing The Byrds “Turn, Turn, Turn.” Some speechwriter is very tuned in to the Vietnam generation. The Centrist Dudette says ‘Basically we are going to go around building nations everywhere.” My liberal friends hurl anew on reading this.
My take following the speech: Bush was predictably short on specifics, but at least he outlined an agenda with some basic direction, unlike Kerry. The speech was good, and I would expect that the polls will refute Kerry, at least in the short run.
10:29pm – Oh, my….the preliminary polls on the bounce: 7%. I had no idea that there would be a poll yet. That number is amazing, especially since “everyone’s made up their minds.” Kerry needs to hope for the gaffe of all gaffes from Bush.
More tomorrow.
I’m watching MSNBC because a) the major networks have eschewed all convention coverage to date, b) CNN is a cheerleader for Kerry, c) Fox News is a cheerleader for Bush, and d) PBS leans so left that they’re sorry that Nader can’t get coverage. So, my evening online diary:
8:10pm – Since I haven’t looked, I ask out loud who might be speaking before Bush. The Centrist Dudette postulates that it will be George Pataki, because “it would make the most sense to continue beating the 9/11 drum.” Sounds plausible.
8:14pm – Tim Russert & Tom Brokaw have already conceded that there will be a big bump for the Republicans and they have stolen the momentum. They talk about how Kerry and Edwards are going to campaign in Ohio tonight so that the Republicans can’t define them. Well…there’s the pro-Kerry media spin. Too bad it’s too late. Now they’re talking about how Kerry is so great at closing and using Iowa as an example. One problem with that, of course: Dean’s numbers were inflated and he was less electable than Kerry or Bush on their worst days. This reminds me of the line from the book ‘Bias’ as relayed to my by Conservative Friend Bird earlier this week; it is attributed to a high-ranking executive at CBS News a few days after the 1972 Presidential election: “I don’t understand how this happened. Everyone I know voted for McGovern.”
8:34pm – George Pataki will indeed introduce Bush. Let the drum beating continue.
8:36pm – Convention Historian Douglas Brinkley is speaking with Chris Matthews about what Bush needs to do. How do you get that gig: Convention Historian? It’s not like there’s a college degree for it. Douglas is saying what he thinks Bush needs to do, which is Media Code for “let me tell all the swing voters where Bush has failed to date.” I love the media; they have no clue just how biased they are.
8:38pm – Oh, my God…as Pataki is introduced the cameras show a shot of the New York delegates. And in the middle is…Jim Kelly, former Buffalo Bills QB. ACCCK!! I’m now voting for Kerry.
8:39pm – So Pataki opens with all of the good things that other states did for NYC after 9/11. Of course…they’re all swing states: Oregon, Iowa, & Pennsylvania. How gauche. I’m trying to convince the Centrist Dudette to continue watching for the comedy value. She’s not listening. Frankly, I’m too busy quelling the urge to barf.
8:43pm – I’m now noticing that if you look away from the TV, Pataki sounds almost exactly like Al Gore. God, please don’t let this man ever run for President. The networks are missing the boat in their fight to unseat Bush. They should be putting Pataki on TV, and people would vote Democratic in droves.
8:49pm – A shot of Guiliani in the crowd. He has this look contemptuous on his face that says “Please let Bush shoot this man when he steps to the podium.” The camera focuses on 2 female delegates with long, bleached hair, facelifts, and fake boobs. The oft-overlooked “Porn Stars for Bush.” Seeing it in print, maybe that one should have been obvious. Wow…5 black women in a row with cowboy hats on screaming “Four More Years!” See…it’s the party of inclusion. Pataki says “I’m a New Yorker.” NOOOOO!!
8:58pm – Thankfully, Pataki is done. Rudy Guiliani is hugging Ron Silver. Guess that says just how far away he and Pataki really are.
8:59pm – Joe Scarborough (the token MSNBC centrist) has a great comment: why would Kerry come out with his big speech in Ohio tonight when he is guaranteed to have to share front-page space with the President? Could it be because he’s a dumb ass? Why didn’t he do it a week ago? Or at this point wait until tomorrow when he'll have the headlines to himself? Oh, now Fred Thompson is doing the opening for the video on Bush. Time to get serious and pay attention. NOTE: A quick flip through the stations, and all of the major networks are steering clear of this, so that we can hear George Snuffleuppagas (ABC), Tim & Tom (Russert & Brokaw on NBC) and some gray-haired guy (CBS).
9:11pm – Bush takes the stage in arena rock fashion. Think there’s a significance to the time? (Probably not, it’s in New York.) The Centrist Dudette realizes that Dick Cheney looks like an overweight version of The Conservative Mississipian Friend. She also suggests that W. hasn’t found out his mother is actually a transvestite.
9:18pm – “Government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.” I agree. So what’s with the Gay Marriage Amendment? “In our world and here at home, we will extend the frontiers of freedom.” My liberal friends recoil in horror at the Neo-Conservative reference.
9:21pm – "(Our institutions) were created for the worlds of yesterday, not the world of tomorrow.” This could be good if he gives specifics. “We will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy.” You’d think after 31 years we’d actually have done that. “We must protect small business owners from the frivolous lawsuits that drag down our economy.” I agree. I wish I could believe him on that one. “In a new term, I will lead a bipartisan effort to reform and simplify the federal tax code.” Ok…I haven’t heard that yet from a serious candidate. It won’t happen in 4 years, but I’m all for opening the dialog for a change. “We’ll increase funding for our community colleges.” Great idea, but that’s at odds with reducing federal spending, though. Ahhh…details, details.
9:26pm - “More than half the uninsured are small business workers and their families. In a new term, we must allow small businesses to join together to purchase insurace at the discounts available to big companies.” George, you now have my undivided attention. “I will insure that every poor county in America has a community or rural health center.” Again…how does that jibe with reducing federal spending? “We must pass medical liability reform now.” Take that, John Edwards. “We will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, DC.” Rhetoric. This is more like a State of the Union speech.
The Centrist Dudette takes exception to an increased home ownership plan: “That’s right, George. You just need to keep building more and more Stack-A-Shacks.” (This is a C.D. code phrase for “cheap-ass condo.”)
9:32pm – Bush has gone into “I’m really a Democrat” mode. For someone who talks about cutting federal spending, he’s sure got a lot of places to add money. However, I have a difficult time disagreeing with his comments about continuing to reintroduce and hold students and teachers to testing standards. His line about the poor Georgia school that expects their students to succeed as the answer to “ the soft bigotry of low expectations”…brilliant. Someone tip the speech writer.
9:36pm – “Anyone who wants more information on my plans can find the details online.” Again…brilliant. The Centrist Dudette is majorly impressed by his ‘plainspeak’ in this address. Bush is picking apart what Kerry wants to roll back item by item. Very smart. Denzel Washington is in the crowd. I'm amazed the cameras haven’t focused on him before. Oh, wait…the networks don’t want to show celebrities supporting a Republican. How stupid of me.
9:39pm – “Because a caring society will value its weakest members, we must make a place for the unborn child. Because religious charities provide a safety net of charity and compassion….Because I believe in the union of a man and a woman deserves an honored place in our society... I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.” At least he’s smart enough to put all the religious crap in one paragraph. Ahh…quoting Kerry as saying “Ronald Reagan was 8 years of moral darkness” is another brilliant line.
9:42pm – Bush says he will never rest in how to better defend this country. The crowd cheers. Guiliani now looks like he’s thirsting for someone’s blood. “We are staying on the offensive, striking terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. And we’re working to advance liberty in the Middle East.” This brings a disruption in the convention by some young female. Bush acts like he's ignoring it, but he’s been shaken a bit. He’d have been better off if he had Guiliani’s or Reagan’s penchant for ad lib.
9:47pm – Now, Bush discusses Iraq. Another disruptor, another removal from the building. (Note to self: how did these people get in? Who’s the head of RNC Security?) Bush rolls with this one better. “We are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East.” The Liberal Friends all look for hurl buckets. Al-Jazeera looks for a friendly, popular dictator. A side note: According to the Wall Street Journal a few days ago, Afghanistan has 9 million people. So far, 9.9 million have registered to vote. Bush says 10MM. Who's quibbling? All liberals should be happy that Afghans have apparently learned democracy from Democrat Richard Daley.
9:52pm -“…and then our troops will return home with the honor they have earned.” No Vietnam comments here. Nosirreee, Bobby. In reference to Kerry’s vote on funding troops, and his subsequent explanation of ‘It’s complicated’, Bush says “There is nothing complicated when it comes to supporting our troops in battle.” “My opponent says our coalition is one of the coerced and bribed” and then goes on to name well-known western allies. Good line.
9:58pm – “(Our enemies) know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate.” My anti-NeoCon friends now have the dry heaves. “Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel.” And the flames are re-lit. But a bloc of Florida voters are now happier.
10:01pm – A jab at the New York Times about a 1946 editorial referring to Germany: “Maybe that person is still around writing editorials.” Quite funny, and appropriate. Bush followed it with “fortunately we had a resolute president named Truman.” Ooops…followed that up with “freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” Maybe the religious references are just my knee-jerk reaction, but I can't help but think that he could back off of it.
10:05pm – “Even when we disagree, you know where I stand.” The crux of the Bush presidency, and arguably the crux of any true leader. “People have to correct my English. I knew I had a problem when Arnold Schwarzenegger had to do it.” Best line of the night. “People look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called walking.” Ok, 2nd best line of the night. Bush is now talking about the military and his families and is actually tearing up. It’s either a glimpse into his real self, or a great acting job. I believe the former, and it has nothing to do with what he’s done, just his real feelings recalling people who have lost people he sent to die and they still support him. No matter who you are, I can’t imagine.
10:10pm – Bush is now paraphrasing The Byrds “Turn, Turn, Turn.” Some speechwriter is very tuned in to the Vietnam generation. The Centrist Dudette says ‘Basically we are going to go around building nations everywhere.” My liberal friends hurl anew on reading this.
My take following the speech: Bush was predictably short on specifics, but at least he outlined an agenda with some basic direction, unlike Kerry. The speech was good, and I would expect that the polls will refute Kerry, at least in the short run.
10:29pm – Oh, my….the preliminary polls on the bounce: 7%. I had no idea that there would be a poll yet. That number is amazing, especially since “everyone’s made up their minds.” Kerry needs to hope for the gaffe of all gaffes from Bush.
More tomorrow.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
PLATFORMS AND PERCEPTIONS
First off, instead of e-mailing me with your viewpoint on this and future postings, click on the "comments" link at the bottom of this article. It will post your views for all to read and respond to, which is really the point of this blog: dialog. Hopefully sane.
I downloaded the Republican Party platform yesterday to read it undiluted by spin from talk radio or Big Media. Can you believe it's 92 pages long? Yikes! One would think that the party that calls itself pro-business would write it like a business plan, complete with an Executive Summary. Oh, no...you have to read the entire 92 pages to find out what the hell they're trying to say. Don't these people realize that no one in America is going to slough through that? They're guaranteeing that their written message will be heard by most people AFTER it's been spun, and probably by the the Republican's adversaries. (NOTE: If anyone's interested, I can e-mail you copies of both party platforms.) So this leaves the positive delivering of each party's message to the presidential candidates.
For all of the talk about how divisive George W. Bush has been, think of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Now, we all think of this man as one of, if not the greatest American President. But he ran almost as a one-issue candidate (the legal abolishment of slavery), and we all know the results. Let's say that George Bush ran as a one-issue candidate: pick one. How divisive would that be? And would he have any hope of winning? Doubtful. But Lincoln did win...with about 40% of the popular vote, although he had the majority of the 4 candidates. Still, Lincoln articulated a message and it resonated. Maybe a bit too much, but it resonated. And in the face of imminent Civil War he never backed down from his beliefs.
40 years ago Lyndon Johnson tried to be all things to all people. Remember hearing (or reading) his "guns and butter" talks, as in "we can have both"? 40 years later, who can tell me what Johnson stood for? He was bombing the hell out of Hanoi, yet building urban housing in the inner cities. He acted like he was still Senate Majority Leader, and appeased Republicans regulary to get social programs through, which doesn't really work when you're the President. He compromised, he waffled, all the while increasing taxes to pay for everything? This, of course, cost him the presidency and cost America 15 years of economic chaos.
I'm not suggesting that politics and public policy are simple, but the presidential candidates who can give their view in clear, simple terms are going to almost always defeat those who can't articulate their vision and think that things are too complex to lay it out in understandable terms. Would Johnson have beat Goldwater if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated? I seriously doubt it. Ronald Reagan would have assuredly been the Republican nominee in 1976 had Watergate not put Gerald Ford in the White House. Would Jimmy Carter have beat him then, or would Carter have even been the nominee? Again, highly doubtful.
Bill Clinton might be a Rhodes Scholar, but he was also able to articulate his views clearly and concisely. Likewise Ronald Reagan. Say what you will about Nixon, but you knew where he stood on issues. And as divisive as he was, he also is the proud owner of the biggest landslide in presidential history.
Americans currently know where Bush stands on most everything and can sum him up in a few words, even if they're choice. John Kerry completely missed the chance to lay out his agenda. Anything he does now will be seen as reactionary. Could it actually be that he has no clear vision? My liberal friends and relatives keep telling me he does, but the same drum has been beating for months: what is Kerry's vision?
As a final statement, The Liberal Dad (who is one of the smartest people I know when it comes to predicting politics) told the Centrist Dude 2 months ago that the "bounce" after the conventions would tell the tale. Well, Kerry got zero bounce, which Big Media spun as "everyone's already made up their minds." What will their spin be when GWB gets a 4-5 point bounce?
Comments are encouraged. Click on the "comments" link below to post them.
I downloaded the Republican Party platform yesterday to read it undiluted by spin from talk radio or Big Media. Can you believe it's 92 pages long? Yikes! One would think that the party that calls itself pro-business would write it like a business plan, complete with an Executive Summary. Oh, no...you have to read the entire 92 pages to find out what the hell they're trying to say. Don't these people realize that no one in America is going to slough through that? They're guaranteeing that their written message will be heard by most people AFTER it's been spun, and probably by the the Republican's adversaries. (NOTE: If anyone's interested, I can e-mail you copies of both party platforms.) So this leaves the positive delivering of each party's message to the presidential candidates.
For all of the talk about how divisive George W. Bush has been, think of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Now, we all think of this man as one of, if not the greatest American President. But he ran almost as a one-issue candidate (the legal abolishment of slavery), and we all know the results. Let's say that George Bush ran as a one-issue candidate: pick one. How divisive would that be? And would he have any hope of winning? Doubtful. But Lincoln did win...with about 40% of the popular vote, although he had the majority of the 4 candidates. Still, Lincoln articulated a message and it resonated. Maybe a bit too much, but it resonated. And in the face of imminent Civil War he never backed down from his beliefs.
40 years ago Lyndon Johnson tried to be all things to all people. Remember hearing (or reading) his "guns and butter" talks, as in "we can have both"? 40 years later, who can tell me what Johnson stood for? He was bombing the hell out of Hanoi, yet building urban housing in the inner cities. He acted like he was still Senate Majority Leader, and appeased Republicans regulary to get social programs through, which doesn't really work when you're the President. He compromised, he waffled, all the while increasing taxes to pay for everything? This, of course, cost him the presidency and cost America 15 years of economic chaos.
I'm not suggesting that politics and public policy are simple, but the presidential candidates who can give their view in clear, simple terms are going to almost always defeat those who can't articulate their vision and think that things are too complex to lay it out in understandable terms. Would Johnson have beat Goldwater if Kennedy hadn't been assassinated? I seriously doubt it. Ronald Reagan would have assuredly been the Republican nominee in 1976 had Watergate not put Gerald Ford in the White House. Would Jimmy Carter have beat him then, or would Carter have even been the nominee? Again, highly doubtful.
Bill Clinton might be a Rhodes Scholar, but he was also able to articulate his views clearly and concisely. Likewise Ronald Reagan. Say what you will about Nixon, but you knew where he stood on issues. And as divisive as he was, he also is the proud owner of the biggest landslide in presidential history.
Americans currently know where Bush stands on most everything and can sum him up in a few words, even if they're choice. John Kerry completely missed the chance to lay out his agenda. Anything he does now will be seen as reactionary. Could it actually be that he has no clear vision? My liberal friends and relatives keep telling me he does, but the same drum has been beating for months: what is Kerry's vision?
As a final statement, The Liberal Dad (who is one of the smartest people I know when it comes to predicting politics) told the Centrist Dude 2 months ago that the "bounce" after the conventions would tell the tale. Well, Kerry got zero bounce, which Big Media spun as "everyone's already made up their minds." What will their spin be when GWB gets a 4-5 point bounce?
Comments are encouraged. Click on the "comments" link below to post them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
