jeaun.com

I'm struck with this point about resoluteness that Bush seems to be obsessed with.  The idea that the most important factor in being an effective commander-in-chief is never changing one's mind makes so little sense to me it's incredible.  I also find it insulting to the troops, the electorate and the world at large that Bush is so convinced that we would all start to lose heart and fall apart if the President did something other than give us constant "rah-rah" speeches.  "Rah-rah" is nice if it's true, but when it's not, it's just propaganda.  In fact, you could take Bush's argument to mean that even if HE thought the war was a terrible idea, he would never say so - for fear of looking like a weak leader.

What could Bush possibly mean when he says that the actions of OBL don't dictate our foreign policy?  That explains a lot actually.  Our war on terror should be focused on what the threat is, and nothing else.  You don't show up to a football game with a catcher's mitt because you don't respect the other team's quarterback.  I really don't get it.  If you can look at this debate and call it a draw, then you need to do some serious introspection.

It's not a draw. Bush didn't really respond directly to any of Kerry's points. However, give non-debate points for Bush for staying on message:

He had like 3 things to say: "My opponent has changed his position! That's weakness....people will think we're weak.."

And, "How can you expect our soldiers to follow a CC like you, when you call what they're doing a diversion"?

"FLIP FLOPPPPPPPPPPPPERRRRR!!!!!"

I find it insulting as well Win. The soldiers won't all fucking shoot themselves if the President isn't talking about the rainbows and puppies the troops are dealing with. Real leaders realize that they have to make tough decisions and that their people are tough enough to deal with them.

I've eavesdropped on three different office conversations today where the participants were pro-Kerry. And I work in a law firm.

I've got to say, it's heartening.

Same deal here at Abb***. I'm suprised that my stereotypes aren't ringing true.

I agree that Bush really didn't perform well. I seem to be in a minority of those I've talked with today about Kerry- I thought he was mediocre. I wonder if I'm disillusioned.

I'd rather have FDR up there popping wheelies in his chair.

Here's a little something from Salon:

By Joyce McGreevy

Oct. 1, 2004 | JIM LEHRER OF PBS: Good evening from the University of Miami. I am not Dan Rather. We interrupt our usual pledge drive to welcome you to the 2004 "He said/He said" between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry.

For each question there is a two-minute response, a 90-second rebuttal, a 10-second eye roll, and a split-second expletive under the breath. There is an audience here, but they will remain absolutely silent, just as if they were attending a rally for the Bush/Cheney campaign.

The first question goes to you, Senator Kerry. Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States?

KERRY: Duh.

LEHRER: Mr. President, you have a rebuttal.

BUSH: Jimmy, let me put my brand on September the 11th. September the 11th been very, very good to me, and I just want to say thank you to the people of September the 11th. Ever since, seems to me we've been safer. Got the multi-pronged thing going on, lots of extra prongs. So like I've been telling the American people, put a fork in it, Iraq's done. But if my opponent had his way, we would never even have jumped out of the fire into the frying pan.

We got lots to be proud of. We pursue al-Qaida wherever al-Qaida hides. Could be anywhere. We caught Cat Stevens. Ten million people registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election. That's more voters than Jeb's gonna let cast a ballot in Florida.

In Iraq, we didn't just see a threat, we were the threat, and we took the threat of ourselves seriously. Because that's what you've got to do, otherwise you're just an idle threat and nothing's going to come of it, see. Saddam Hussein and Martha Stewart now sit in a prison cell. It's a good thing. I think the American people can see that I stand for something.

We're pursuing freedom around the world. We'll find it, hunt it down. Free nations got a role to play, helping us achieve the peace we want. And we don't want all that much.

LEHRER: Response, Senator Kerry.

KERRY: We have to be smart, Jim.

Win, it sounds like you're concerned that the debate might actually end up being considered a draw -- have you been reading anything credible to that effect?

I've been doing next to nothing but reading debate analyses all day today, and the near-universal consensus seems to be that Kerry carried the day. (Only "near" universal because the president had the edge in analyses by Sean Hannity and some guy they found sleeping in Cheney's van.) In particular, the major debate polls all showed Kerry with a significant edge, usually getting high-50-something to Bush's low-30-something.

There's also lots of ink out there on how Kerry did a good job seeming presidential and looking like a viable leader, and how the debate format so carefully crafted by Bush's handlers ended up playing to Kerry strengths (since it kept him from pacing around and going off on tangents, stuff like that). One thing I haven't seen much of is opinion about how strong an effect the debate will have on actual polling numbers. Me, I wouldn't say Kerry hit a home run by any means, but I'd say he's at least corked his bat very nicely, and may very well knock it clean out of the park in the upcoming debates.

I think Kerry did a hell of a job last night. Other than trying to force the President to actually answer some questions, there's not much more he could have done. He looked and sounded good, he stayed relaxed, and he explained his positions and plans pretty well. If the right people saw the debate, and were able to avoid being brainwashed by Bush's repitition, it's a good thing for Kerry.

Bush didn't really score well in the debate, but I think he did exactly what he wanted to do. Bush is running a campaign based on "it's me or the flip-flopper" and "it's me or the abortionist" and "it's me or the french-talker", etc. Just like they've done all along, they aren't saying Jack about what their plans actually are. And his debating "technique" follows that principle. At least as far as foreign policy is concerned, he's going to point to the few successes we've had, talk a lot about freedom, and avoid talking about any plans for the future or failures of the past by insulting John Kerry's character. Sure, he's not telling us much, but he's not hurting himself, and if people hear the phrase "mixed messages" enough, they may start to believe it.

I think they both got what they wanted out of the debate: Bush, damage control; Kerry, look like a president. The effect could have been devastating if either of them had fucked up, but they didn't. The effect is going to depend on who bothered to watch, and, more importantly, on how the various news agencies spin it. If they say that Kerry was good, but he didn't hit a home run, then that's what happened. It's a wishy-washy report, and it's not likely to change people's mind's, but it may give them a reason to watch the other debates.

And, I think those other debates are going to have a much different character. Bush will be more upfront about his policies, because a lot of those policies will single-handedly bring over voters (abortion, gay marraige, taxes). Kerry will be just as articulate and sensible as he was last night. He'll look good, but it's really going to come down to the perceived importance of dead babies, dollars, and dykes in the eyes of each voter.

I only saw the debate in Spanish, so I can't judge how well they did on a "presentation." point of view. I didn't hear the actual voices of the actual, only those of the translaters. However, based on words and words alone, I would describe what we saw as "a clowning." Why? Because President Bush got clowned. This is because John Kerry clowned him.

This due to two basic facts: First, Kerry was calm, articulate, and competent, and second, George Bush was and remains a clown.

He displayed a basic failure to grasp the philosophical underpinnings of the neo-con movement which he spearheads. He couldn't even begin to defend it. He just kept saying the same thing over, and over, and over again.

The other Americans who trickled into the only place in town that was televising the debate, and who didn't speak much spanish, could, by the end, recognize what Bush was saying because he hardly said anything, and the things he did say, he repeated at least 10 time: "El cambio su posicion."
No puede cambiar su posicion. Nadie seguiria un lider que siempre cambie su posicion."

It may have been the spanish, but it sounded *lame*

Also, seeing his "I can't believe anyone would disagree with me little smirks." Especially when disconnected with his speech, made him come off as plane ol' irritating.

From my perspective, having only heard a translation voice-over. Kerry took him to grade-school.

bush "debates" like a petulant 9-yr-old. that said, i think there's still plenty to worry about outside of his close-but-no-cigar use of "voiciferously" (yeah, i'm sure the insurgents are fighting loudly, but george might have just meant plain ol' "vehemently." the joys of a word-a-day calendar...). this is starting to look, to borrow a friend's analysis, like a corker of a high school student body president race. i'd venture that it was the rare high school in which the smart kids won anything.

but i haven't given up yet. we've got a month to go, and iraq's not *not* getting worse, unfortunately for the real sons and daughters over there, but contrary to the picture the administration paints. hopefully the rest of the electorate will see through the neo-cons' plen-t-plaint issues (anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-church/state separation) and vote right for a fucking change.

I think you mean vociferiously.

yes, of course i do.

Edwards is fucking it up he's fucking it up what the hell is he talking about?

Ok, he's doing much better now that they're on to tax cuts and gay marriage.

scary there for a while, though....

So what I offer as your vice president is John Kerry and a side hatch of John Kerry. Oh wait, i wasn't supposed to say "John Kerry".

Doh! I said "John Kerry" again. . .

p.s. John Kerry

yeah, that sucked. but in fairness, that was a stupid rule....

It was a stupid rule, but he also never bothered to actually answer the question. Every person at that table irritated me at some point during the debate. The moderator asked dumb questions, the candidates rarely bothered to answer them, and they didn't talk about anything that's not going to be covered in the presidential debates.

I'm not sure who won the debate, but I think it was probably more helpful to Bush than to Kerry. We got to hear someone relatively articulate make the case for Bush, but Edwards didn't really add much to what Kerry said last week.

Of course, the only reason this was helpful to Bush is because Bush himself did such a piss-poor job in the last debate. Keep it up, George!

Pretty lame all around. Despite the pointedness of the attacks this time around, the debate struck me as overall quite tepid and rehearsed. There were a lot of flagrant accusations going back and forth over the facts. It was like watching two guys perform poorly in a "prentending to be stunned by the mistruth telling of my opponent" contest. Gwen Eiffel was no help here at all. There needs to be some instant fact check built into these things, because even the "toughest" questions are meaningless if it is so easy to lie.

The statesmen beat the mill worker's son, because of gravitas and nothing else. They both basically sucked.

I'll score this one for the VP, but I was happpy about finally realizing one thing: John Kerry is our candidate for president. He really was the best choice out of the pack of ten. I'm glad we don't have JE in the number one slot.

There's a slow trickle of fact-checking being done by the AP and other sources. The most easily-refuted claim of Cheney's is that last night's debate was the first time he'd met Edwards, which is patently untrue: they met at a national prayer breakfast in February 2001. Elizabeth Edwards sought to remind Cheney of this onstage directly after the debate; do you think he told her to go fuck herself?

Kucinich for Prez in '04!

"I hear there are rumors on the Internets."
-George Bush

"Need some wood?"

"Liberty can change habits."

"When a drug comes in from Canada, I wanna make sure it cures ya, not kill ya. ... And what my worry is is that, you know, it looks like it's from Canada, and it might be from a Third World."

"We've got battling green eye shades."

"Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all—you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America."

Both candidates need to provide more detail on the plans to "get out of the mess" (and George Bush's greatest blunder)in Iraq - I did hear that Kerry mentioned that he had his plan on his webswite- kerry.com? Also, we need more information on what to do with the Palestine/Jerusalem situation - both seemed to support Israel - but we need to allow Palestine to have a country to call their own, because these people cannot live in peace together - too many years of hatred, killing, and revenge - just like in Kosovo, Yugoslavia (the Albanians and Serbs still don't get along, and there's a lot of unvented hatred still brewing there).

Kerry is definetely the more stately of the two- though I don't know everything about him- except what I have read in Time, BusinessWeek, and the TV, I will vote for him. I would like to find out more about the details of his planned policies though.

I would never vote for Bush and didn't back in 2000 either. I consider him an "imposter" sitting in teh White House when he really has no right to be there, to be the representative of the US to foreign countries- I am ashamed that he is our president and appalled that it seems that 50 to 60 percent of our nation still like and believe in him and will probably vote him in for another term. I consider a good proportion of our american citizens as "not too bright."

I really hope that more women get out there and vote- especially ones that are single like me and independent.

The Iraq war was planned almost from day one after September 11th- Bush took advantage of the situation and Americans to pursuede the country that we needed to bring the war to Iraq - as it was a "serious threat to our nation's security." Of course we (and why I am puzzled that people will still vote for him) have since found out - Iraq was a level 6 - a very "low threat." Bush and his team - Wolfitz (not sure of spelling), Cheney, and Rumsfield as well as others were determined to change the regime in Iraq to help support Israel-help protect them, as by "spreading our freedom" to Iraq, we could eliminate one of the Muslim countries that threatened Israel's security (as it is surrounded by Muslim countries). Also, I do believe that big businesses contracts (friends of the President and Vice-president, and contributers), the oil, and the fact the George W. Bush had a "chip on his soldier" to "go get" Sadaam since he tried to assasinate his father and because he wanted to show to his dad, he could take care of what he left unfinished. Poor reasons in my book.

If anything, George W. Bush should be on trial right now for impeachment for lying/deceiving Americans to pursue his own administration's initiative - and for lying and saying we went to war because of CIA evidenve of "weapons of mass destruction " in Iraq. Actually, from what I've read (Time Magazine, "Pretext for War" book), the Bush people (especially Cheney) would go over to the CIA and demand that they find something to substantiate an attack on Iraq.

Truly appalling, the lies and deceits. Why is not being held accountable? Is it because the House is mostly Republican? I believe I read either the Senate or House of Reps is mostly Republican. Bush is being protected - I don't see him ever paying for his mistakes and all the lives that have been lost so that he and his administration could pursue their 'regime change' in Iraq.

So, you're single?

Wow. Someone's Word-A-Day calendar landed on litany.

Ships, I know this doesn't really merit pointing out in a public forum, but I totally made that same joke alound to a room full of debate watchers last night. Got laughs.

Holy crap. So did I.

I would guess that we share a brain, except you're way more smarter than I done be.

Why doesn't the commentator clarify when the candidates don't actually answer the question?

Sunday, I think it's in the rules that the candidates and moderators agreed upon that they can't.

Plus, the debates would last like 5 days if they did that.

What they should do is make them answer yes and no questions for the first 10-20 minutes. All they can say is yes or no, nothing else.

And then after their term we find they lied we should chop off a finger for erroneous answer.... or something. There is no damn accountability.

What's the point of the debate if they are allowed to flagrantly ignore the questions? There's no way to call a winner, because neither of them are playing by debate rules. Debate team, ho!

This is, by far, the most aggravating part of campaigns. The one time we see them intereact, they have made themselved completely inacessible. I keep thinking that if I were up there with them, answering questions factually and with sincerity, I'd be elected in a foetus's heartbeat.