Just got back from synagogue. So let’s see what’s going on.
9:45 Good fast defense of John Edwards and he’s talking about health care. Seems to be doing a good job.
9:47 Has Bush been sounding this whiney the whole time?
9:49 So Bush is blaming the recession on Clinton? Gee. There’s a surprise.
9:50 Thus far, Bush seems more comfortable in this format than he was last week. On the other hand, he had all the questions ahead of time. I’m not sure if he answered the question though.
9:52 Kerry’s doing a good presentation. On the other hand, I’m not sure if he’s answering the question either. For that matter, I’ve forgotten what it was.
9:53 Okay, the moderator just said, “How?” Bush is not answering it. Let’s see if Kerry presents how.
9:54 Nope. He didn’t either.
9:55 Well, if Kerry gets elected and winds up raising taxes, this answer’ll come back to bite him on the ášš.
9:57 Wait…”Either he’s going to break all these promises he made, or he’s going to raise taxes.” Bush just said the same thing twice. He should be writing Daily Bugle headlines. “Spider-Man: Threat or Menace.”
9:59 “Look at the record.” Mr. President, you really, REALLY don’t want your record looked at too closely.
10:00 I’ll be interested to see the fact checkers on Bush’s response about environmental initiatives.
10:02 Well, Kerry just lost Boston.
10:03 Good riposte on Kyoto by Kerry.
10:06 Good answer from Kerry about being competitive.
10:08 Bush continues to hammer the “didn’t show up” thing. I really think someone whose military history is criticized for his not showing up shouldn’t be going down that path.
10:09 Okay, DOES Bush own a timber company? Because if he does and it really is news to him, boy, that’s going to be all over the papers tomorrow.
10:11 “I don’t think the Patriot Act abridges your rights at all.” Oooooh, that may not have been the smartest thing to say.
10:12 “Whole bunch of folks.” Kerry’s starting to talk like Bush.
10:14 Kerry seems reaaaally uncomfortable in handling the stem cell question. Which is odd, because he’s been extremely firm on his opinion about it. He probably doesn’t want to risk offending the extreme religious folks any more than Bush does. Silly. They’re gonna vote for Bush either way. Might as well just go for it.
10:16 Never seen Kerry so tongue-tied.
10:17 Bush is doing better on this question than Kerry, which is interesting since so many people support stem cell research.
10:21 Kerry is absolutely knocking the judge question out of the park while Bush was muddy over it.
10:23 Kerry is doing only so-so with the question about tax dollars. I get the whole “respecting” thing, but it’s really all over the place.
10:27 “It’s never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.” And Bush is not getting it.
10:28 Ohhhhh,Bush is going right down the chute on ths question, I have a feeling.
10:28 Wow. Bush’s rebuttal was really quite awful.
10:29 Those last two should have been switched. Bush’s rebuttal on partial birth was awful. The down the chute is on the question about making mistakes, and yeah, I was right. Awful.
10:30 “Gut check time?”” I like that. “IT’S GUT CHECK TIME!”
10:31 “Saddam would be in power and the world would be a lot better off.”
10:33 You know waht would be interesting? If Kerry said, “If you guys want, I’ll hang out and answer more of your questions, unprepared. Just toss ’em out.”
10:35 Kerry’s closing was basic stump speech.
10:36 Same with Bush. “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” “9/11.” Typical buzz scare talk.
• 
Meghan:
>Sad, inexplicable but true — a substantial percent of people in residing in that state say “Missouruh”. Every voiceover of every political ad aired in that state says “Missouruh”. I believe you can imagine who they’re pandering to.
If this was calculated, I’d be even more concerned at his short-sightedness, as he would be catering to 1 state, leaving the other 49 thinking that he is an idiot.
Fred
You should never assume intelligence based on pronunciation. It’s true that people do, though it is usually done to reaffirm an already existing bigotry–denigrating blacks for the way many pronounce certain words, for example, or denigrating Southerners by quoting Deliverance (ok, that’s mostly just me).
Anyway, it’s a foolish way to judge someone, one that probably says more about the judger than the judged.
As for the debate…neither of these guys is a silver tongued fox. I expected kerry to walk away with these things, given the assessment of his college professor. Narrow win for Bush on this one, I think (Kerry’s total lack of humor just throws me. I’ve heard he’s a funny guy in person but I haven’t seen any sign of it. Maybe his specialty is naughty limericks or making obscene balloon animals or some other thing he can’t safely demonstrate.)
Go to http://www.isbushwired.com to hear a startling revelation about the first debate.
Y’know, I once attended a debate between Betty Friedan and Phyllis Schafly (sp?). I was lucky enough to know the person in charge of the audience question mike, so after I asked my question of Phyllis and she completely evaded it, I was able to hold on to the mike and say “You didn’t answer my question. I wish you’d answer *someone’s* question.” (this being around question 3 she’d dodged).
I would’ve found this “debate” a lot more interesting if the questioners had the option of saying that to the candidates, with the moderator having final say on “Yes he did/no he didn’t” in terms of giving one final chance to actually answer the question.
I’d give it to Kerry, but not by as wide a margin as the first one. Serious points for the “Read my lips, no new taxes” bit though.
Boy, I’d give this one to Bush. Kerry had a plan for everything – in fact he constantly talked about his plans. But he never did anything in 20 years in the Senate toward the goals of his plans. I have a lot of plans too, but I’m not foolish enough to think anyone would believe them.
Dennis
“Kerry’s total lack of humor just throws me. I’ve heard he’s a funny guy in person but I haven’t seen any sign of it.”
I’ll watch Jon Stewart for humor…I want a President who thinks that 1060+ soldiers dead is serious….that crippeling deficit is serious. Running the country is a serious job for serious people, not the class clown.
During the foreign policy part, it was obvious both candidates were relying on terrifying the American people into voting for them (or rather, voting AGAINST thier opponent). I half expected Bush to say, “there’s a bear in the woods” or play a video of a little girl being blown up by a nuke.
This debate was simply too close to call, but I think I have a new lumber supplier.
James Tichy wrote, to PAD: “Get out of NY and talk to people for once.”
There aren’t people in NY? I’ve lived here a while and either we have plenty of people, or some incredibly realistic automatons. Fortunately, it sounds like we New Yorkers don’t have you.
Sorry, this still goes to Kerry. Not that he didn’t have his share of mistakes or didn’t do his share of ‘dancing around the questions’ but I’m amazed at how childish and barely in control Bush comes across as. He still twitches and squirms, he starts yelling while Kerry is still speaking, he interrupts the ‘ref’, he stalls an huge amount of the time obviously trying to think of what to say. Dear lord this man is the most powerful man in the world right now! It is so scar and frustrating. He sounded a bit desperate at times. Is that the result of new training after the first debate? Is he trying to come across as ‘strong’? I was just half expecting him to start stomping his foot like a 5 year old.
He was heavier on the repeating of the soundbites too. Yes Bush….Kerry thinks it was the wrong war at the wrong time, etc. etc. He doesn’t deny that does he? Quit repeating that over and over.
One of the worst moments for me was when Kerry said the bit about abortion and how it was not as simple as Bush made it out to be. About safety to the mother and such. And how Bush just completely and utterly ignored those points and just repeated his earlier statement. Not one word on the safety of the mother. Unbelievable.
So it’s: Bush said something. Kerry answered it and made new points about it. Then Bush just repeats his first bit, like Kerry never spoke. Why don’t you just come out and say “yeah I got no answer for that whatsoever”??
Overall too much repeating on both ends though. And enough about Iraq. We’ve heard it. Let’s get more on the other issues now.
I listened to the debate on my walkman at work. Did anyone else notice that, when Bush was trying to nail Kerry for being the most liberal senator, Bush called him “Kennedy” instead?
Bush has to quit looking indignant. He looks like a petulant, whining child who’s two seconds from a kicking, screaming temper tantrum. How can anyone want to vote for a guy who can’t deal with criticism? Cracks under pressure like *snap* that!
I was thinking the same thing.
Whoa, he actually admitted making a mistake. It was in “appointing” people, and won’t name names, but whaddaya know?
Then why is Tenent the only one who’s lost his job?
Fred wrote about Bush:
“In speaking of Saddam :”We Know he has invaded other countrIES”??? Ugh.”
Saddam DID invade two countries: Kuwait, and prior to that, Iran. Saddam tried to permanently seize the Iranian oil fields that border Iraq.
As Bill M. points out, Fred’s complaint reflects a common thread of intolerance and snobbery towards Bush’s not-so-slick oratory skills. I said it before and I’ll say it again: Just because a person fumbles during public speaking does NOT mean they are a poor leader or a bøøb. Richard M. Daley and his father Richard J. (both Democrats) are/were two of the best leaders Chicago has ever seen — yet both butcher(ed) the English language as well.
I’ve also known smooth talkers who were some of the most vile liars imagineable.
If oration skills are the only reason someone has for voting against Bush, that’s a bit superficial, wouldn’t you say?
Man, Bush was really acting like a thug. Hats off to Gibson for not sinking to Bush’s level.
Maybe im just a little slow but i dont get the “soft ” supporters of a candidate at this point of the game if you dont have an opinion either way something is really wrong.
Why are people still concerned with who is more personable or funny when it comes to the Presidential candidates?
I want the most qualified guy for the job.I have heard “Bush is a average guy”.First I dont want an average guy running things i want friggin Superman in office .The smartest ,most talented Mofo on the planet!!!
Besides if he(Bush) is an example of who people wanna hang with ,we are so screwed as a country.
Karen asks:Then why is Tenent the only one who’s lost his job?
He didnt lose his job he stepped down to spend more time with his family(sarcasm) 🙂
Reading through this, I have to say that Queen Anthai is a complete moron!!!
Man, I can’t understand how anyone could see this as a win for Bush. Even if you agree with his viewpoint. He was shouting throughout the first third of the debate, he was defensive, he contradicted himself, he was evasive.
I am registered Republican, but over these last couple of years I have become more and more independant.
I think Bush did a very credible job during the first debate. The “gimaces” were pretty minor. That got overstated. I do think President Bush looked a little uncomfortable there, but here he just looked out of control.
Not only that, but I could really understand Kerry’s reasoning behind his decisions because of his answers. It may be “pandering” to some, but I found it quite helpful. Both certainly repeated themselves (even repeating zingers from the last debate! – Neither one of them could come up with a response by now?)
What I’m AMAZED about is that NO ONE brought up gay people.
There aren’t people in NY? I’ve lived here a while and either we have plenty of people, or some incredibly realistic automatons. Fortunately, it sounds like we New Yorkers don’t have you.
Actually, I was suggesting that PAD should get out of his NY liberal bubble. Oh, I know he goes to conventions and such, but why not come here to SE Minnesota or visit Iowa or South Dakota? Ask some of the voters in this area, many who happen to be pro-life, if they consider themselves religious extremists?
http://www.georgewbush.com/debatefacts/ rest of link
Hmm. I’ve never seen the words “flip flop” used so many times in one place. You’d think they’d have come up with another catch phrase by now.
Either that, or they just want to cheat Google’s system like people did with “miserable failure”. 🙂
Ask some of the voters in this area, many who happen to be pro-life, if they consider themselves religious extremists?
Having lived in Iowa and Illinois for most of my life… yes, there are extremists. Plenty of them.
I distinctly recall a classmate when I was in high school making an off hand comment (I don’t recall how the discussion lead to this) saying she wanted genocide against homosexuals.
Why? She seems to think that that’s what that great piece of fiction called the Bible calls for.
Scavenger: C’mon Lugi…it was obvious what he meant
Luigi Novi: Hence my referring to it as a
The debate seemed more even to me with both candidates avoiding offering some real answers, but Bush did seem angry.
Related topic- I just watched the Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD and all of its extras and it is very powerful!!
Those innocent Iraqis citizens are suffering the kind of Orwellian nightmare right now that is feared over here.
The army coming into your home in the middle of the night, putting guns in your face, taking away a member of your family, not telling you why or what the charge is, with your children being terrified that they are going to be shot/beaten/raped… it’s too horrible to really comprehend.
How could any Government-fearing, from-my-cold-dead-hands NRA supporter watch someone being hauled away in the middle of the night to be imprisoned indefinitely for the simple crime of owning a rifle to protect your flock of sheep, support Bush or this war??
This the “Freedom” the US wants to bring to Iraq? Do you blame them for not wanting it? How would you react if an invading army killed your baby?
This war has to stop, Bush should be imprisoned right next to Saddam. He’s as much of a terrorist as Bin Laden!
Yet with so much at stake less then half the eligible voters still won’t vote.
me:
>>If this was calculated, I’d be even more concerned at his short-sightedness, as he would be catering to 1 state, leaving the other 49 thinking that he is an idiot.
Bill:
>You should never assume intelligence based on pronunciation. It’s true that people do, though it is usually done to reaffirm an already existing bigotry–denigrating blacks for the way many pronounce certain words, for example, or denigrating Southerners by quoting Deliverance (ok, that’s mostly just me).
>Anyway, it’s a foolish way to judge someone, one that probably says more about the judger than the judged.
Bill, l’ve lived in enough places not to judge a a regular joe on based on accents or dialects. As far as pronunciation, it doesn’t phase me except for public speakers. Correct and clear pronunciation is one of the first rules of Speech 101.
With Bush, this is only one of many flubs in a long history. Add to it “internets”, mix in somr unintentional misstatements that he didn’t correct because he seems to repeat his material from his campaign trail so often and no longer even listens to what he is saying….. and it is not unreasonable to question his intelligence.
T:
>As Bill M. points out, Fred’s complaint reflects a common thread of intolerance and snobbery towards Bush’s not-so-slick oratory skills. I said it before and I’ll say it again: Just because a person fumbles during public speaking does NOT mean they are a poor leader or a bøøb. Richard M. Daley and his father Richard J. (both Democrats) are/were two of the best leaders Chicago has ever seen — yet both butcher(ed) the English language as well.
Not a complaint at all. Simply an observation. No snobbery, but fact. People react, respond and form opions on th way way a speaker speaks. Bush’s poor leadership and being a bøøb are totally seperate matters all together…… that is, of course, unless he is one day heard saying, “I will not be told how to pronounce a word by an English Dictionary.”
oops, sorry, missed a point.
R:
>>”In speaking of Saddam :”We Know he has invaded other countrIES”??? Ugh.”
>Saddam DID invade two countries: Kuwait, and prior to that, Iran. Saddam tried to permanently seize the Iranian oil fields that border Iraq.
If memory serves correctly, the two countries were not only at war, but Iran has attempted to seize Iraqi soil as its own, iniaiting the boundary-marking squirmish.
Regardless, both of these incidents took place years ago. To use them as a justification for the current war is like pointing to Vietnam as a reason to invade the U.S.
“Kerry’s total lack of humor just throws me. I’ve heard he’s a funny guy in person but I haven’t seen any sign of it.”
I’ll watch Jon Stewart for humor…I want a President who thinks that 1060+ soldiers dead is serious….that crippeling deficit is serious. Running the country is a serious job for serious people, not the class clown.
Granted. I was, however, talking about the debate, not their qualifications to be president.
For some, Bush’s mispronunciations are enough yo make him the debate loser. For me, the ability to demonstrate something approaching a sense of humor is of more importance. Different strokes.
“Bill, l’ve lived in enough places not to judge a a regular joe on based on accents or dialects. As far as pronunciation, it doesn’t phase me except for public speakers. Correct and clear pronunciation is one of the first rules of Speech 101.”
“With Bush, this is only one of many flubs in a long history. Add to it “internets”, mix in somr unintentional misstatements that he didn’t correct because he seems to repeat his material from his campaign trail so often and no longer even listens to what he is saying….. and it is not unreasonable to question his intelligence.”
I thought your statement seemed out of character–I see now that I misread it–you were talking about others, not yourself. My apologies. In my defense, my drinking game this time was to kick back a shot of Frangelica every time Kerry said the word “plan”. It took a ride to the emergency room and having my stomach pumped with a charcoal slurry but I’m doing much better now and am expected to recover fully.
But if Bush is such a dope what’s wrong with Kerry that he can’t finish him off?
Luigi Novi: So why’d he vote for the Patriot Act?
LKW: Well … I would like to think that he, or his people, had read the whole thing; so, if so, he probably should have held out for some changes. But in the immediate wake of 9/11, everyone was understandably concerned about reacting as strongly and as quickly as possible. And, even if Senator Kerry had taken a stance against it at that time, it is very unlikely that any changes would have been effected, and he or whoever dared stand against it would have taken some major political damage. Should integrity matter more than saving political face? Sure, ideally. But, unfortunately, in our system, electability comes first.
Not that I’m trying to knock our democracy; it just ain’t perfect. Our government is dominated by people who seem to care about getting re-elected and ripping the opposing party to shreds first,and then taking care of the country.
But, given that reality, I’d still rather have (as I know you would, from your other posts; just finishing my thought out here) someone who went along with the Patriot Act initially for political expediency, but acknowledges that it needs changes before its renewal, rather than the candidate who thinks it’s just fine as is, with Darth Ashcroft enforcing it.
Oh, and Bush did acknowledge making a mistake a little more specifically than “I’ve made mistakes”? Sorry, didn’t pick that out in his “answer” 😉
Does Bush get any points for punking Charlie Gibson? It was pretty good debate up until Bush went all “Jerry Springer” on us.
But if Bush is such a dope what’s wrong with Kerry that he can’t finish him off?
People love to say it’s Bush’s “likability”. Frankly, I don’t see what’s so likable about him.
But then, command the English language is an ability lost to many Americans.
Heck, Jeff Foxworthy would make a better president. He may be a redneck, but he also knows the English language. Which goes to show that anybody can learn it. 🙂
Just a note regarding Saddam’s multiple invasions:
When Saddam “invaded” Iran, a few points should be mentioned in terms of context. Roughly six years earlier, Saddam and the Shah of Iran signed an agreement (for clarification, I’m using the heads of state, though it’s more likely it was the foreign ministers of each country who actually signed the agreement itself…but I digress…) which would allow Iraq rights to travel the Shatt-al-Arab unimpeded. Prior to that agreement, the two countries disputed their common border at the Shatt, though Iran, at the time, had the military power to control the Shatt outright, and had done so. Iraq had claimed the border should be down the middle of the Shatt. After the Shah was overthrown, there was no guarantee that the newly-established Islamic Republic of Iran would adhere to the treaties signed under the Shah’s regime. Further, the Emirate of Kuwait (save that name for later reference) feared Khomeini’s Iran having full control over the Shatt which would allow the Iranian mullahs a much closer point to export their revolution to the various Gulf States (a similar fear was felt by both the UAE and Oman which were in an uncomfortably close proximity to several Gulf islands controlled by Iran–much closer, in fact, than would be guessed when looking at a fairly large-scale map of the Middle East which shows the Strait of Hormuz as a form of natural defense); as a result, Kuwait and the other Gulf States were staunch supporters of Saddam’s invasion. Incidentally, the major section of Iran which Saddam’s armies overran was largely populated by ethnic Arabs (also, a northern sector of the frontlines was populated by ethnic Kurds who feared the Khomeini regime more than they did Saddam, primarily due to the Kurds’ being mostly Sunni, not Shi’a). Even the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave financial backing to Saddam’s invasion (the Kingdom also promised to allow Iraqi oil to be transported through Saudi pipelines to offset any potential damage that might be done by the Iranians); this support was due largely as a reaction to the 1979 siege of the Grand Mosque, widely believed to have been provoked by a statement by Khomeini against the Saudi royal family. Saddam wanted to make sure his country had free access to the Persian Gulf, and after the Iran/Iraq War ended, the border situation reverted to the agreement brokered under the Shah’s regime. (Granted, it was a large waste of resources and personnel for the sheer sake of maintaining the status quo, but one could say much the same thing about the Western Front during WWI when thousands might die in one day to win a few square miles only to have it lost the next day.)
Now getting to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, it should be remembered that it was *OUR* ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, who reassured Saddam personally that the United States had no opinion on Arab-Arab disputes, and she did use Secretary of State James Baker’s name in conjunction with this. While Tariq Aziz has stated that it was tacitly understood that the US would have a reaction, there’s nothing to indicate that Iraq expected the war that followed. (It should also be noted that a great deal of the rush to war has been shown to have been based on propaganda by Kuwaitis who had rather interesting connections–such as the daughter of Kuwait’s Ambassador to the US gave “testimony” about Iraqi soldiers pulling babies out of incubators and leaving them to die–while ignoring some of the Emirate’s less-than-democratic principles of their own.) It also should be noted that Saddam wasn’t the only Iraqi leader who either invaded or wished to annex Kuwait. Kuwait’s very independence in 1961 was threatened from the onset, and was saved only by the British military. (The military leaders in Baghdad had the fairly recent memory of the British and French assault on Egypt in 1956 to stay their plans to annex Kuwait in 1961.) Although Iraqi leaders did recognize Kuwaiti sovereignty a couple of years later, that did not guarantee that Iraq fully relinquished its claims over the area (much the way that, despite acknowledging British control of the Islands, Argentina still claims the Falklands/Malvinas although it doesn’t press the issue and maintains good postwar relations with Britain). Perhaps Sec’y Baker or Ambassador Glaspie would have done better to state outright a US position regarding Arab-Arab disputes, but given the fact that oil reserves were involved (one of Saddam’s claims was that Kuwait was drilling in areas too close to the existing border, using a diagonal drilling method which was drilling into Iraqi reserves; this claim was never proved, but as far as I know, it wasn’t disproved either).
Overall, Saddam has been no more aggressive than any number of other leaders in history (Woodrow Wilson committed American troops to put down “rebellions” in the Caribbean, Mexico and Central America several times during his Presidency; Mussolini launched invasions of Ethiopia and Albania prior to WWII, within 3 years of each other), but his reasons were no worse than Bush’s own decision to attack Iraq. And, of course, the US fully backed Saddam’s war against Iran with the current President’s father as Vice-President during that period, and Dubya’s current Sec’y of Defense even went to Baghdad and facilitated the selling of weaponry to Saddam. (I can’t really count Saddam’s invasion of Iran as being as condemning as Dubya appears to make it.)
Luigi wrote:
“Luigi Novi: It would be, if anyone here actually gave that as the
Joseph wrote:
“Saddam wanted to make sure his country had free access to the Persian Gulf, and after the Iran/Iraq War ended, the border situation reverted to the agreement brokered under the Shah’s regime.”
It doesn’t matter what sort of rationalization Saddam had for invading Iran, nor who stood by and “winked” as he did it. The fact is, Saddam DID invade two countries during his reign, and thus Bush’s plural usage “countries” during the debate was accurate.
I merely vocalized my observation that Bush’s natural way of speaking seemed to be emerging here as a central focal area for post-debate Bush bashing — a pretty superficial reason to criticize someone, in my opinion.
Why superficial? We know he went to Yale and we know he had a privledged upbringing. The rest of his family does not seem to have a major problem with the English language. (And they seem to be able to speak without that drawl. Listen to good ol’ Jeb sometime.) With all the advantages he’s had in his life, he couldn’t take the time to learn how to speak properly? There are people all over the country that are denied jobs every day because they don’t speak in a “caucasion” way. (There have been investigative reports where a “white” sounding individual and an “African American” sounding individual applied for jobs. In many cases the African American’s interview ended with the phone call, while the white person was called in.) Dan Quayle was crucified in the press for much less.
Bill:
>I thought your statement seemed out of character–I see now that I misread it–you were talking about others, not yourself. My apologies. In my defense, my drinking game this time was to kick back a shot of Frangelica every time Kerry said the word “plan”. It took a ride to the emergency room and having my stomach pumped with a charcoal slurry but I’m doing much better now and am expected to recover fully.
Man, I’ve never experienced it firsthand, but have witnessed enough college students have it administered that I don’t envy you. 😉
>But if Bush is such a dope what’s wrong with Kerry that he can’t finish him off?
Simply put, Kerry spends too much time and focus on attempting to defend himself and not nearly enough focusing on the plans he has clearly laid out on his site. The 2nd debate was another example of this. He was great when he answered questions, but felt the need to preface nearly everything he said with some sort of jab at his opponent or defense of himself.
Fred
I thought that Bush raising his voice early on was not dissimilar to Sam Waterston yelling during cross-examination on Law and Order. I also felt that when Bush called Kerry’s statements “Naive and Dangerous,” Bush was running scared. I honestly do. Because no one in their right mind would boil their opponent’s remarks as “Naive and Dangerous.”
Karen wrote:
“There are people all over the country that are denied jobs every day because they don’t speak in a “caucasion” way. (There have been investigative reports where a “white” sounding individual and an “African American” sounding individual applied for jobs. In many cases the African American’s interview ended with the phone call, while the white person was called in.) Dan Quayle was crucified in the press for much less.”
Which is exactly why I say criticizing Bush (or the Daley’s) for the way they speak is superficial.
Karen also wrote:
“With all the advantages he’s had in his life, he couldn’t take the time to learn how to speak properly?”
I’ve known plenty of highly intelligent people who just cannot speak with smoothness and slickness in public, regardless of how hard they try. Would you tell a person who stutters, “Hey, the only reason you stutter is because you’re lazy, stupid, or both”?
Public speaking is very hard for most people. Jerry Seinfeld once quipped that public speaking is the number one fear people have — even greater than dying. His punchline? That means that a guy at a funeral might fear giving the eulogy more than being in the coffin.
And I’ll also repeat the fact that I have known some real smooth talkers who were really bad people.
If anyone is around and/or interested, CNN is replaying the 2nd debate from 2pm – 4pm est (Right now).
Fred
I’ve known plenty of highly intelligent people who just cannot speak with smoothness and slickness in public, regardless of how hard they try. Would you tell a person who stutters, “Hey, the only reason you stutter is because you’re lazy, stupid, or both”?
Bush has been speaking in public for a number of years and I don’t see fear when he does it. I only see discomfort when he has to answer questions he dislikes. If Bush had a speech impediment we would not be having this conversation. My next door neighbor has a speech impediment, but still manages to speak English properly, although slowly. This is about a man who had every advantage, but still won’t be bothered to put a sentence together without sounding like he is a high school drop out. I am not asking for smooth slickness. I am asking that the leader of my country be held to a higher standard when speaking than the average person.
Why? She seems to think that that’s what that great piece of fiction called the Bible calls for.
But at least you’re tolerant, so that helps cancel out the bigotry, right?
Fûçk. I’m really pìššëd that that guy in the audience asked Bush why his rights are being watered down by the Patriot Act, because it allowed Bush to say that they’re not being watered down, and talk about parts of the Act that make it easier for differnet agencies to share information, which is obviously not what that guy was talking about. What that guy should’ve asked was about SPECIFIC parts of the Act he was thinking about, like the ability to survey and jail people without evidence.
It’s a sad time in our country’s history when the government can determine land boundaries without evidence. I’m sure you actually were referring to surveillance rather than surveying, but given that so much criticism of the President focuses on his speaking style– including his foolish tendency to pronounce the name of the state he’s in like most of the residents, who regrettably don’t know the proper pronunciation– I don’t think this is a cheap shot. Obnoxious, perhaps, but the truth hurts.
Your substantive point is equally weak. Bush can easily say that the USA-PATRIOT Act doesn’t water down our rights… because it doesn’t. The fact that there’s a running battle in the courts over the Act tells me that our system is working precisely the way it’s supposed to, and it’s not as though the Act could trump the Fourth Amendment even if there were anything invidious in the Act. The surveillance provisions are actually fairly trivial– they allow wiretap warrants (issued by a Federal judge, mind you) to follow a person rather than be linked solely to one phone number. This is a Good Thing. There is NO provision for jailing people without evidence. Here’s a link to the text of the Act itself. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/patriotact.pdf Point to a provision like the one you describe. Prove me wrong. (I’ll even make it easy for you. You probably want Section 412, and I’d be glad to debate with you the merits of that section, and why I think it’s a good deal less offensive than some commentators would make it seem.)
Couple of things..
Kerry’s abortion answer.. straight, clear, concise..
“I have to decipher that.” – Bush.
I have an IQ over 80, so I understood it just fine.
I wish Kerry a few times instead of hitting the point again that he just did. Just said something to the effect of, I just covered that I’m glad the American people were listening… and not hit back every time.
And yes, PAD, I thought the same thing about Kerry. End of his speech he should have said.. anyone didn’t get their question asked of me come up and ask it, I won’t leave until your questions are answered.
Kerry’s abortion answer.. straight, clear, concise.
Sure, if you think that saying that he is a very religious person who cares about what people think who are pro-life and plans to ignore what they think, but still wants their vote make sense and is straight talk.
Ken:
>>Kerry’s abortion answer.. straight, clear, concise.
>Sure, if you think that saying that he is a very religious person who cares about what people think who are pro-life and plans to ignore what they think, but still wants their vote make sense and is straight talk.
The original post echoed mine. Seperation of church and state. Kerry gets it. George doesn’t. One need not agree morally with all laws governing the rights and freedoms of others, but the president should support them.
What part of Kerry’s intelligent abortion answer didn’t you understand Ken?
Why do the anti-choice religio-fascists have the right to force their religios beliefs on others?
YOu don’t believe in abortion? Then don’t have one stupid!
But don’t you DARE tell someone else they can’t. It’s none of your gøddámņ business. IT’s unconstitution to legislate your religious beliefs into law in this country. Maybe you’d be happier living in Iran where religion rules…
QUESTIONER: Sen. Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that.
But I can counsel people. I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility. I can talk to people, as my wife Teresa does, about making other choices, and about abstinence, and about all these other things that we ought to do as a responsible society.
But as a president, I have to represent all the people in the nation. And I have to make that judgment.
Now, I believe that you can take that position and not be pro- abortion, but you have to afford people their constitutional rights. And that means being smart about allowing people to be fully educated, to know what their options are in life, and making certain that you don’t deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can’t afford it otherwise.
That’s why I think it’s important. That’s why I think it’s important for the United States, for instance, not to have this rigid ideological restriction on helping families around the world to be able to make a smart decision about family planning.
You’ll help prevent AIDS.
You’ll help prevent unwanted children, unwanted pregnancies.
You’ll actually do a better job, I think, of passing on the moral responsibility that is expressed in your question. And I truly respect it.
The questioner asked what will you do to reassure people that our tax money won’t go to help causes that are morally wrong and he essentially answered with “Screw you! Let’s stop unwanted pregnancy and have no responsibility for our actions!”
Ken: Sure, if you think that saying that he is a very religious person who cares about what people think who are pro-life and plans to ignore what they think, but still wants their vote make sense and is straight talk.
No, what he said was, as was my interpertation, was that ‘freedom for all’ meant freedom for all. Just because Kerry, personally, did not believe in something like abortion (he may or may not, I don’t think he said), does not mean that other people in this nation who do believe in abortion should be denied that option.
Kerry may or may not believe abortion is right, and either way, it’s a moot point. As a legislature, he has an obligation to afford others that option.
I thought Kerry’s response to his vote against Bush’s bill on partial birth abortion was smart, because if you do believe that all life is important, then the life of the woman carrying the child is also important, and if having the child might kill her, she should have the right to save her own life. Bush’s response was so small minded, it’s insane. He might as well have jumped up and said “Fûçk that! She’s havin the kid even if it kills her!”
The functions suck on this sight.
All but the last paragraph is a quote and should be bolded.
“But then, command the English language is an ability lost to many Americans.”
Er…did you mean “…command of the English language…”?
Which just shows why it’s important to proofread when criticizing the language skills of others.
>>YOu don’t believe in abortion? Then don’t have one stupid!
>>But don’t you DARE tell someone else they can’t. It’s none of your gøddámņ business. IT’s unconstitution to legislate your religious beliefs into law in this country. Maybe you’d be happier living in Iran where religion rules…
Abortion isn’t a purely religious issue. Unless the pregnancy poses an imminent threat to the life of the mother, I’m against abortion; and it has nothing to do with my religion (Lutheran, for those keeping score at home). So Kerry’s statement made complete sense to me, but it seemed to me that Ken’s post wasn’t religiously motivated (and he didn’t even state his stance on abortion) and Blade’s tirade against him seemed completely unfounded. To me, he seemed to be of the opinion that Kerry’s answer was basically political pandering to pro-choice voters while doing his dámņdëšŧ not to alienate fundamental Catholics and other pro-life voters. Kerry’s answer did make mention of separation of church and state, but more importantly, it allowed voters to see the grey area of an issue as opposed to the Bush administration’s black-or-white BS.
Was Kerry’s explanation of his vote for partial birth abortions political? Of course it was. But it may have been true as well.
But did he vote for it because of political reasons or personal feelings about the issue? THIS is the point I think Ken was trying to make, and I don’t know the answer. Senators have a RIGHT to be against abortion, or for it. They have a RIGHT to outlaw abortion, or legalize it. But they do not have the right to outlaw abortion “because the pope said so” and I hate to think that just because a congressman should choose to vote against it (and happens to be Catholic), that it automatically means they’re writing thier religion into law.
Bush:
And you’re right, I haven’t vetoed any spending bills, because we work together.
Doesn’t hurt to have Republican majorities in both the House and Senate.
Bush again:
Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it’s less than 1 percent, because we’re working together to try to bring this deficit under control.
FACT: 2.5% before, 8.2% after according to the conservative Cato Institue.
But at least you’re tolerant, so that helps cancel out the bigotry, right?
Umm, actually, it means I don’t feel the need to kill a bunch of people to satisfy some disgusting mental problem.
And I can’t say I really care for the word “tolerant” since all it means is “not intolerant”. People like Bush and that classmate of mine? They’re intolerant of gays.
So no, I’m not tolerant, I’m supportive – I have gay friends, a gay relative. I support gay marriage. And I support them doing what they want when the way, to the point where it becomes offensive, same as any hetero couple.
Which just shows why it’s important to proofread when criticizing the language skills of others.
Typing is one thing, saying is another.
Oh, dámņ, I forgot “of”. I guess I don’t know English from šhìŧ on a stick. But hey, I know that if I said that sentence aloud, I wouldn’t forget it. Bush might though.
Maybe I should have typed “command of the Engrish language” to make it more appropriate for Bush’s speech patterns.
The difference? I don’t misunderestimate myself.