Gallant: "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives but they're a nuisance." – John Kerry, via AP as quoted in The New York Times Magazine on Sunday
Goofus: "I couldn't disagree more," Bush said. "Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance. Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorist networks and spreading freedom and liberty around the world." The Bush campaign is also criticizing the comment in a new television ad. (Also via AP.)
Is it even possible for the Bush campaign to use any of Kerry’s words against him without totally removing them from their original contexts? Clearly, the implication of what Kerry is saying is that it’s impossible to definitively win the war on terror, but it is possible to contain it to a dull roar—i.e. to the point where the average American isn’t so scared (and/or fearmongered) about a potential catastrophic attack that they’re willing to give up their civil rights for protection.
And didn’t the same Bush that’s quoted above recently say that we can’t win the war on terror, then immediately flip-flop and say we could? Sounds to me like maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, that quashing terrorism completely is an impractical and unachievable goal, but that trying to control the tide of terrorism is probably the most reasonable and attainable objective. (See Gallant, above.)
Goofus v. Gallant
Worth a Look
Benjamin M. Friedman has an excellent article at the New York Review of Books site on the differences between Furious George's and Kerry's policies here. If you come across an undecided voter, directing him/her to this article, or just having at hand the intricacies it lays out about the two candidate's respective proposals to make your case, might be useful.
Got Balls?
The L.A. Times reports that the Bush administration plans to hold all major assaults in Iraq until after the election:
"When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Once you're past the election, it changes the political ramifications" of a large-scale offensive, the official said. "We're not on hold right now. We're just not as aggressive."
And this should quell any doubts that the current interim government in Iraq is just a puppet of the Americans:
During a recent trip to Washington, Allawi expressed his interest in reclaiming insurgent-controlled cities in the Sunni Triangle in time for the January election, even in light of the potentially negative political impact in Iraq that a bloody military operation could have. Yet officials say that the man who owes his job to President Bush — and might not have such a warm relationship with a President John F. Kerry — does not want to press his case too hard before the U.S. election."A lot of his political future depends on our election," said the senior administration official.
I honestly can’t decide what shocks me more about this story—the brazenness of the admittance, even if it was by yet another anonymous senior administration official, or the actual decision to delay necessary actions to secure the peace in Iraq because of “political ramifications.”
I acknowledge that Furious George’s supporters would argue that because Bush is the right man for this fight, it’s necessary to ensure he gets reelected by any means necessary. However, if he can’t run the war the way he would normally and still get reelected, then perhaps that’s a sign that the American people, were they not being constantly hoodwinked, don’t agree that he is the right man for this fight, after all.
Good News
Editor & Publisher reports that Kerry is leading Bush in major newspaper endorsements, both in number and in terms of readership:
The largest papers in three swing states endorsed Kerry today: the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Portland Press Herald in Maine. Yesterday Kerry picked up the backing of three other large papers: The Oregonian in the other Portland (which backed President Bush in 2000), The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Bush notched no major endorsements this weekend (that we are aware of), and the current official E&P count stands at ten papers for Kerry and five for Bush, with Kerry holding about a 5-1 advantage in the circulation of the newspapers backing him.
Additionally, as reported on AMERICAblog, the Philly Inquirer has vowed to “writ[e] editorials for each of the next 21 days on a particular issue and why Kerry's the better choice.” Good stuff.
Hot Karl
NewsMax reports that Evil Genius Karl Rove is planning at least October surprise for Kerry/Edwards. For more on Rove’s tactics, see The Atlantic Monthly’s Nov. 2004 issue, which you need a subscription to read online. Another good article, if you have any interest in finding out about the man behind the man behind the curtain, can be found here. An excerpt:
In our last interview, I tried out on Rove a scenario I called "the death of the Democratic Party." The Party has three key funding sources: trial lawyers, Jews,
and labor unions. One could systematically disable all three, by passing tort-reform legislation that would cut off the trial lawyers' incomes, by tilting pro-Israel in Middle East policy and thus changing the loyalties of big Jewish contributors, and by trying to shrink the part of the labor force which belongs to the newer, and more Democratic, public-employee unions. And then there are three fundamental services that the Democratic Party is offering to voters: Social Security, Medicare, and public education. Each of these could be peeled away, too: Social Security and Medicare by giving people benefits in the form of individual accounts that they invested in the stock market, and public education by trumping the Democrats on the issue of standards. The Bush Administration has pursued every item on that list. Rove didn't offer any specific objection but, rather, a general caveat that the project might be too ambitious. "Well, I think it's a plausible explanation," he said. "I don't think you ever kill any political party. Political parties kill themselves, or are killed, not by the other political party but by their failure to adapt to new circumstances. But do you weaken a political party, either by turning what they see as assets into liabilities, and/or by taking issues they consider to be theirs, and raiding them?" The thought brought to his round, unlined, guileless face a boyish look of pure delight. "Absolutely!"
Published in May 2003, I think we’ve seen ample evidence since then that the above scenario is exactly how they intended to win this election.
Battle of the Bulge, Part III
In case you’re interested in following the White House’s ever-changing explanations for the rectangular lump under Furious George’s jacket during the first, and possible second, debate(s), check out this amusingly-titled article from the BBC: Bush’s bulge stirs media rumours. Much like justification for the war, the WH’s excuses for that bulge seem to be a moving target. Go figure.
And BTW, if Kerry knows that Bush is wired, he needs to start the next debate by simply ripping off Bush’s jacket and showing him in all his wired glory. There’s a reason The Wizard of Oz is considered a classic; we all love seeing the shriveled little man behind the curtain.
Why Does Furious George Hate Americans?
Rude Pundit’s review of the second presidential debate is in: “the Rude Pundit doesn't think Kerry lost, but Kerry could have rubbed Bush's face in his own pile of shit and held up his face so the rest of us could point and laugh.” Read the whole thing.
Denial Ain't Just a River...
Great quote from Kerry today, via the AP:
"Here I am in the state of New Mexico. George Bush is still in the state of denial," Kerry told the supportive crowd Sunday. "New Mexico has five electoral votes. The state of denial has none. I like my chances."
So Long, Superman
This morning, the AP reports that Christopher Reeve has died. Having just been mentioned Friday night by Senator Kery, Christopher Reeve was truly inspirational in his determination to recover and his activism to raise awareness about the need for stem cell research. I feel particularly sad and upset to hear that he has lost his fight.
Of course we all knew him as Superman, but I recommend having a laugh to celebrate him with Noises Off, especially if you've never seen it.
So long, Superman. We'll miss you.
Pants on Fire
Eric Alterman has a nice column at The Nation about When Presidents Lie. Included are some great insights on the voters, including the following, which affirms my conviction that the Left’s future depends on organizing an ideological infrastructure to rival the Right:
Voters react to the news through the lens of a personal history containing certain stereotypes, predispositions and emotional associations that determine their interpretations. We emphasize that which confirms our original beliefs and disregard or denigrate what might contradict them.
If the party’s leaders continue to see themselves as somehow fundamentally different from the members in the heartland, connecting to them through a shared personal history will be impossible. I’m not suggesting that a man like Kerry pretend he came from beginnings like Edwards, or that Edwards pretend that he lives the same life now as when he was a child, but surely we can borrow a page out of the Republicans’ playbook and stop trying to place the emphasis on how much alike we all are in terms of personal circumstances, and start trying to elucidate our shared goals and vision (emotional associations) as the most important personal histories to celebrate. Being the son of a millworker only matters if you can convey why that informed your belief system—and that’s it the same one as the son of a millworker who did not go on to become a multimillionaire.
Perhaps that seems obvious, but if we were communicating that message effectively, this election wouldn’t be a horserace.
Judge Dred?
One of many curiosities at Friday’s debate was Furious George’s invoking of the Dred Scott case. If you were like me, your reaction was, “Huh? WTF is he talking about?” Was anyone suggesting that he might appoint pro-slavery justices?
Kynn at Atrios offers an interesting explanation. It goes back to the 2000 campaign, as so many things do these days, not the least of which is my terror that we’re about to get four (more) years of the Bushies.
More information also in Salon’s War Room.
Notes from a Red State
This election year, we’ve heard, and we saw evidence at the convention, that the Democrats are more united than ever before. It’s a refreshing change from the usual bickering factions of which the party is usually composed. I fear, however, that our philosophical leaders—not those who we elect to office as much as those who traffic in ideas, including many of the excellent writers whose words grace the pages of publications like Salon.com, The Nation, The New Republic, numerous blogs, and the airwaves of Air America—are in great danger of squandering this unity in the same way that our current president squandered the nation- and worldwide unity we experienced after September 11.
You see, I live in a red state. Chances are, if the residents of my state are referenced, the state isn’t even called by name. We are “Middle America,” “the Midwest,” “the Flyover States.” We are nameless, faceless—a large blob of indistinguishable masses who love McDonald’s, Wal-Mart, and Jesus, not necessarily in that order. We are Fox’s minions, and we do Bill O’Reilly’s bidding.
Frustratingly, I read examples like Salon’s Scott Rosenberg’s blog last night, post-debate. In critiquing the president’s performance, he wrote: “His lines are writ in stone, and we've heard them already. Here they were again: "He changed positions." (As if that in itself were a crime.) "I know how these people think." (The line reeked of dismissive condescension in the first debate, yet here it was again: does it play to the know-nothing xenophobic heartland?)” I agree with Rosenberg that Bush’s line was condescending; I question whether his analysis, however, is any less so.*
This position is not displayed solely by commentators; in a recent cover story on Salon, Jason Flores-Williams, an activist and political writer, is quoted as saying, "I don't see this budding movement being in any kind of dialogue with mainstream America….Mainstream America is going to work and turning on the TV, and they're going to think what they're going think regardless." This attitude is all too indicative of that which permeates even the best lefty publications and organizations. There is a pervasive disdain for us non-coastal “folks,” and while the Left’s willful ignorance of our diversity is nowhere near as insulting as the right’s pandering while creating policies that show nothing but contempt for the people whose very votes (and ignorance) they depend on, that willful ignorance plays directly into the charges of elitism the right is so fond of making.
It is disheartening to read my favorite writers flippantly referring to the entire middle of this country as if it doesn’t matter—a barren cultural wasteland whose only value is a bunch of electoral votes, many of which aren’t even worth fighting over. Neither presidential candidate is even running ads here, because we’re supposedly so red that either one might as well flush that ad money down the toilet. Well, yes, we’re a red state; a majority of us (inexplicably) voted for Bush last time. But we also have a governor and a senator and many other elected officials throughout the state who are Democrats. That isn’t solidly red; that’s purplish.
As equally maddening is reading folksy articles about the swing states (I’m talking to you, Slate), where the interviewees seem hand-picked to suit the author’s (and readership’s) idea of the eccentric blues tucked in amongst the sea of reds.
The purveyors of ideas on the Left must rid themselves of prejudices that suggest we are Ground Zero of the Culture Wars. Yes, there are bigots and zealots and plain old run-of-the-mill idiots here—and there are in the big blue city in which I lived for ten years, too. But there are also plenty of people around here who don’t even understand what the fuss about gay marriage (for example) is all about, because it’s totally removed from their daily experience—not because they don’t know any gay men or women, but because they resolved it years ago as No Big Deal (also see: None of My Business). Any of Fox News Channel’s dubious newsmen can parade out an endless stream of fear-mongers to talk about how gay marriage is a sign of the coming Apocalypse, and we all shake our heads—wow, those red states sure are backwards, huh? But we’re all so used to that being the normal state of affairs that it seemingly never occurs to anyone that there are just as many people in the middle states who think the whole thing is ridiculous. And for a lot of them, it isn’t a Constitutional issue—or, rather, it doesn’t have to be. It’s as simple as minding one’s own damn business, no fancy arguments required.
My goal in writing this piece is not simply to complain, but to raise awareness; the real issue is that there are people in between the coasts who want more information, who are straddling the fence, and whose minds can be changed, yet nowhere to direct them, when the disdainful elitism is in all our best sources. They believe the oft-repeated mantra that democrats are elite. Mark my words—it’s not the “liberal” tag we Lefties have to worry about; it’s “elite”—because there’s nothing wrong with being liberal, but there is something wrong with being elite, especially when one wields it like a sword. I understand the tendency toward intellectual snobbery; it’s inevitable to some degree as we’re all well aware of the correlation between education and liberalism—we are the smarter party that relies on reason and logic and doesn’t depend on the ignorance of our electorate for their votes. That necessarily and rightly gives us a sense of betterness, from which flows, then, the urge to reinforce our difference from the currently ruling party by brandishing our mighty brains and sense of superiority. And, in some circles, that works very well—particularly in a blue city where all of the very blue people in your midst are fashionable and erudite and have fabulous jobs, and no one needs convincing because it’s common knowledge that everyone with a brain is blue like us.
I’m not creating a ridiculous scenario for effect; I’ve been at that table, and I think that any of the blue commentators to whom this is directed will admit they’ve been at that table, too, if they’re being honest with themselves.
But that insularity is a problem. A big problem. It makes the charges of elitism accurate. Elitism in fact does cripple this party, and the vast divide between the intellectual leaders of the party and the party faithful in the otherwise-red states is widening by the day. It used to be just a (perhaps unavoidable) disconnect, but it has grown beyond that. Increasingly I read and hear comments from the coasts bemoaning the middle of this great country and lumping its residents into one big grab-bag of unappealing attributes. You have forgotten that we blues exist out here, or you simply don’t care.
What we all must remember is that the base of this party has always been the blue-collar worker, the union member, the hourly wage earner. We are yielding appeal to these people through our derision of who we assume they are. In this area of this red state, we are the redneck Fox-devouring idiots that you might expect, driving around beat-up pick-up trucks with bumper stickers that read “WARNING: In case of rapture, this vehicle will be unmanned.” We are also, however, all colors, all national origins, religious liberals, secular humanists, gay, gay-supportive, interracial families, and we are politically active. Out here, political activism isn’t always as glamorous as blogging on blackberries from the Fleet Center, or as noteworthy as walking across the country for a cause. Often, it’s finding people who are open to liberal ideas and talking to them, and spending time, person by person, discussing the issues and spreading information. It’s changing minds vote by vote by vote.
It can also mean getting your car scratched (or getting fired) if you have a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker. It can mean getting ignored by a coworker who still doesn’t understand that Saddam wasn’t behind 9/11. It can absolutely infuriating, living among people so different than you, especially when you’ve lived in a city where there was so much sameness. Even the Republicans in my former blue city weren’t the kind of Republicans in my current red state. Out here, there’s a brand of Republicans like none I’ve ever encountered, and still we try to debate with them, to open their minds, if not change them.
But now tell me…when I find someone who’s open to the ideas I want to share, where do I send them for more information? Do I send Mr. Smith, the young father, the factory worker who commutes two hours to his job, who doesn’t own a suit because he has no need, who chews tobacco and hides it from his schoolteacher wife, do I send him to Salon, so he can be insulted by dismissive portrayals of the morons in the middle states? If I tell him that Bill O’Reilly isn’t giving him good information, do I sent him to Henry Quinn’s blog at Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O’Reilly.com, where amidst the brilliant debunking are unfortunate tirades against Middle America? How will he feel if I send him to read The Nation, and he comes upon Katha Pollitt referring to “Thomas Frank's fascinating analysis of the growth of the right in the so-called heartland”? What does that mean—so-called heartland? I assure you, Mr. Smith believes the Midwest is the heartland of this nation, and he would be offended that someone thought otherwise and chose to derisively mock it.
It may be too late to change gears in time for this election, though I have every hope we will win. I call on the leaders of our party, both elected and those in the chattering classes, to revisit their tactics over the next four years, even if and especially if we win back the White House. There has been great debate about our need to level the playing field—particularly in terms of creating a media and communications infrastructure to rival that of the conservatives. I also argue that we need to look at how the Republicans have found a way to connect with Middle America so effectively that the voters who will most suffer from their policies turn a blind eye to that very possibility. It’s not about pandering; there is no need to dumb ourselves down or embrace a more centrist approach to appeal to conservatives. There are plenty of people who consider themselves Republicans out here in the vast middle of the country simply because the Republicans have managed to convince them that they are more representative of their interests by presenting themselves as “normal folks,” despite the charmed circumstances from whence they may have sprung.
It is our obligation to return to a time when the American middle class worker, who sees the potential of the Left’s policies to make his life better, is respected. It’s easy to forget that it is not the fortunate among our ranks who most need Democratic leadership; when John Kerry says, “I’m going to fight for you,” he is talking to Middle America, and we should never forget that they are worth fighting for.
Marginalizing Middle America has only disenfranchised those who would otherwise support the inclusive, middle-class strengthening policies of the Left. It’s time to start talking up the concern we have for the average American, not because it will win us votes, but because it’s actually true. That’s what separates us from the Right, and if we lose that concern, then we are truly doomed.
*Update: In response to a comment regarding the above, Rosenberg did offer an apology and noted that he did not intend to impugn the “heartland” in its entirety.
Immediate Action Required
AMERICAblog reports that Sinclair Broadcast Group has plans to preempt its regularly scheduled prime-time programming days before the election to air an anti-Kerry film that attacks his military record. If the name sounds familiar, it’s because you might remember them from the refusal to air Nightline’s broadcast featuring the names of all of our fallen troops.
According to this report, Sinclair’s refusal to air the Nightline episode was:
not the first time that Sinclair's conservative political leanings — 98 percent of its 2004 political contributions have gone to Republicans (MediaChannel.org, 4/29/04)— have led the company into journalistic controversy. In February, a Sinclair news crew was sent to Iraq to cover the “good news” that was allegedly going unreported in the rest of the media (Baltimore Sun, 2/18/04). And shortly after the September 11 attacks, Sinclair executives required stations to air editorial statements in support of the Bush administration (Extra!, 11-12/01).AMERICAblog’s John Aravosis issues the following call to action:
We need to know which of our local stations is in bed with the president and this right-wing zealot and we need to destroy them. I'm talking get every single advertiser to leave those stations. Publish the advertisers email and phone and contact them, demanding that they stop funneling their money to partisan un-American TV zealots who are trying to throw our election. I suspect most advertisers will not like hearing about this story.Let’s get cooking.
Wanna Buy Some Wood?
Last night I had the pleasure of watching the 2nd Presidential debate with a group of local strangers I met via johnkerry.com. When my partner and I got to their house, however, we were instantly no longer strangers. That’s the interesting thing I’ve noticed in the last couple of months. No matter where I go, once people identify each other as fellow political progressives, mutually committed to helping take back this country, we bond instantly. It is the recognition of “Ah, you’re one of us, you’re a member of the club.” It feels like a secret society, the Rebel Alliance banding together to overthrow the Empire (Star Wars geek!!).
So this is how I felt as I met several folks from this North Suburban Illinois community which is primarily Republican (although Illinois is, of course, solidly blue). It is amazing, for instance, how many people waste money, paper, and yard space promoting Alan (snicker, snicker) Keyes. This group I met represented an interesting cross-section of the other side of the community. An older gay couple. A straight couple or two. A woman in her 60’s who had worked for Ross Perot in '92. It was interesting to hear her tales of how the Democratic and Republican campaigns made deals with each other behind the scenes and managed to edge Perot out of the polls before the election to prevent the public perception that there was even a possibility he could win (her assertion was that Perot made it to 25% at one point, although the media cut him off at 12%). While unsure of the accuracy of her claims, and certainly no Perot supporter myself, it was definitely chilling to hear her case that there aren’t really two parties in this country.
Regardless, there was no question of the allegiance of this group. This was a Kerry crowd through and through. The level of contempt for Bush was palpable, and as the night progressed, the vast difference between the two candidates became the primary topic at hand. One man in the group had come to the US from Canada over a decade ago with the belief that things were freer here, more open, more opportunity for everyone – gays and minorities alike. To his dismay, as the stranglehold of the Christian Right has gotten tighter and tighter over the years, intertwining its roots with American politics, and (s)electing its “divine appointee” George W., Canada has gone in the opposite direction, legalizing gay marriage, distancing itself from religious influence, and balking at the US’s foreign policy. One of his main observations has been how polarized the country has become in the last four years – and how much worse it can get if Bush is re-elected. To him, the possibility of returning to Canada if Bush is re-electing has become more and more of a probability.
During last night’s debate, one would expect a primarily biased reaction from such a biased group. True, there were guffaws, screams of anger, and uproarious laughter at key points. The most jaw-dropping moments: When Bush “lost his shit” and jumped up, interrupting Charles Gibson, frothing at the mouth, and angrily retorting – violating his own debate rules. What happened to strictly enforcing the rules, Gibson, you pussy?? Gwen Ifil had no problem getting tough with Cheney. Or how about that draft rumor on the “internets”? There’s more than one? Hm, Al Gore must have invented another one. Just like Bush himself revealed last night that he “proposed the hydrogen car.” Amazing. Why have the pundits not cherry-picked this slip of the tongue from the context from whence it came and pounced on Bush in the same manner they turned Gore into an exaggerating liar in 2000 (when in actuality he was simply commenting on his involvement in promoting the internet in the 80's)? Or what about Bush’s outright lie and bizarre joke about his involvement in a wood business. Even though he flatly denied Kerry’s claim that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 income tax report of $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise, the facts state otherwise (see Cheney’s favorite website factcheck.org).
Despite these and other obvious low points for Bush, the night was surprisingly not a total lovefest for Kerry. A few members of the group were a bit dismayed that Kerry has still not provided a detailed enough policy for Iraq. Others argued that the two-minute format did not allow enough time for detail, and that going into too much detail could backfire, turning off some undecided voters. Another criticism of both candidates was that neither answered the questions directly enough (see Kerry’s answer on the abortion question or – as we will discuss – the hilarity of Bush’s “three mistakes” question). The “debates,” which many people accurately claim are not debates, but dueling stump speeches, consist mainly of repeated soundbites.
Witness one of the final moments. An audience member presented the excellent question to Bush of what he felt were his three biggest mistakes of the last four years. Echoes of a press conference a few months ago when a reporter asked Bush a similar question and Bush stammered, complaining that he hadn’t had time to prepare in advance. So the moment of truth came. The question was asked. I was filled with hope because I knew Bush wouldn’t answer it and that would lay the groundwork for Kerry to knock it out of the park and end with a bang. Bush, predictably, not only didn’t answer the question, but proceeded to repeat the lie about how great we were doing in Iraq, blah, blah, blah. He quipped about regretting some appointments he had made but not wanting to embarrass the people on TV (wha-? Huh? Are these unnamed people responsible for all your follies and your failed foreign policy? Are these the people -- ahem… Bremer… Powell…Rumsfeld… ahem -- who have publicly humiliated you with their conflicting reports about Iraq?). So now, here was Kerry’s chance to blow us all away. Turn Bush’s statements back on him. Point out the fact that he didn’t answer the question because he could not admit his mistakes. Point out the fact that everything Bush listed as an accomplishment was actually a failure. But Kerry simply repeated his assertions about the Iraq war. His answer sounded more like a soundbite and less like the fine-tuned, honed in, sharp attack that was needed at that point. In fact, as the night dwindled down, this brought up a few points among the crowd about other missed opportunities for Kerry. One big one: during the discussion of the economy/jobs/corporations, why did Kerry not throw it in Bush’s face that before becoming governor of Texas, Bush drove three companies into the ground? Or the fact that Bush came into the Oval Office with only a few years of political experience, while Kerry, during his 20 year Senate career, has done extensive work in foreign relations with many of the world leaders the GOP now claims he will not be able to rally in a coalition?
Despite these missteps, I do not see how anyone can claim today that there was anything close to a tie. Kerry still had the confidence, the upper hand, the command of the facts, and the solid consistency that Bush merely dreams of (every night before he wakes up every day thinking of how he came keep us safe from “terra”!). Simply saying that because Bush didn’t engage in the same lengthy pauses, facial convulsions, and pants-wetting that he did last time does not equal a victory or even a tie. Let’s get real and give it to the true winner, once again – John Kerry. Most importantly, however, let’s hope that America continues to watch and draw its own conclusions – as unbiased as possible, like the group I met – instead of falling prey to the post-debate spin monsters.
Bush Loses His Shit
Watch it here over and over until you are finally ready to pick your jaw back up off the floor.
Assault on the Senses
James Wolcott manages to capture it all beautifully once again with the typical gorgeous understatement.
Bush's performance reminds me of the time my grandfather went out for a long walk with my then-4-year-old sister, who had a reputation for being a nonstop chatterer. Upon their return, he made a beeline for the bathroom, from whence he soon emerged with a Band-aid over each ear.
The Pain Was Enough to Make a Shy, Bald Buddhist Reflect and Plan a Mass Murder
Thoughts on the debate…
OMG. Why is the President screaming at me? Why is he charging Charlie Gibson like a bull for a red cape? Why is he telling someone who feels that their rights are being eroded that they’re wrong? Why is he telling someone who wants to know what mistakes he feels he’s made that when “they say” say that, “they” mean that invading Iraq was mistake? Sir, maybe she knows better what her own question means than you (or “they”) do.
Leaving aside policy differences, as there’s simply no overlap between the two visions for America these men have, and so it’s unlikely that anyone who’s up on the issues (and/or feels even remotely passionate about any of them) will have been swayed by content, the winner of this debate was clear: John Kerry…by a mile.
Bush seemed like a major bully, totally reactionary, and not someone who you'd want, as they say, with his finger on the button. In fact, we've seen the result of this hyper-spazzy, arrogant, antagonistic, angry, belligerent man when he's faced with a decision - stare blankly into space for 7 minutes, then declare war on the wrong country. His agitation (and, dare I say? – desperation) were palpable. Despite his attempts not to scowl, and the flippant remarks about his previous surly debate performance, he came across as petulant, impatient, rude, boorish, impudent, condescending, and just plain mean. His winks at unidentified attendees were creepy. And every time Kerry was speaking, Bush hovered anxiously on the edge of his stool, blinking like a Tourette’s sufferer on speed.
By comparison, Kerry was composed, measured, incisive, and patient. He sounded far less like he was lecturing, and more like he was calmly explaining his positions. The personal presentation between the two men was striking. Kerry gave a remarkable performance, showing decisively that he is better suited to a position that requires a level head and a curious and complex nature.
----------
On several shots of Bush's back, it looked like you could see a wire running down his back underneath his jacket. Could have been a crease, but it didn't move when he did. Maybe they hid the box in his crotch this time, which is why he was so cranky.
----------
I'm hating all the coverage on every news channel. MSNBC - the panel consists of Peggy Noonan (Reagan speechwriter), some Republican lawyer, and Pat f-ing Buchanan. Oh yeah - and Ron Reagan, Jr., who seems a bit lefty, but is still, after all, the son of the Republicans' favorite cowboy of all time. It's the same on all the other channels. And no one wants to call it. Better ratings for them if it remains a horserace. Now Ann Coulter is on CNN. I didn’t realize they had officially transformed into the Cunt News Network.
----------
Yahoo reports on Bush’s emotional turmoil. All the online “internets” polls are showing Kerry with a large margin of victory. Hopefully, in spite of the spin we’re getting on the news channels, more reports accurately depicting Bush’s woeful performance will emerge, along with poll results heavily favoring Kerry as the winner.
Time to Vote
Kerry won. I know it's being called a tie, but Bush came off looking like a deranged person. Scary stuff.
Go to the polls. Go to the polls. Go to the polls. You can find lists on AMERICAblog, Atrios, and DailyKos (links at right).
More later....
Master Debator
Leading up to tonight's big debate, I am considering the last debate, and I think that, despite reports that Bush is in fighting form (and has supposedly been told not to "make faces" this time), Kerry will surely be given the opportunity to throw him well off-balance tonight. And as the last debate proved, once Bush is off-balance, he doesn't easily recover.
One of the things I noticed during the first debate (and was also noted by others, including the Rude Pundit) was that when Kerry invoked the words of Daddy Bush, it was the first time that Junior Bush looked visibly annoyed, and it was all downhill from there.
Kerry is inarguably an intelligent man, but I think he's also an incredibly perceptive man--a deadly combination for Bush. Kerry knows how to push people's buttons, and quoting Daddy Bush was a brilliant way to get under Junior's skin.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Kerry holds in store for his opponent this evening. I wouldn't count on Bush being the master of cool going up against someone who can clearly outmaneuver him in a battle of wits.
