Here it is. Final election time. The dynamic of the race has changed radically over the course of the last few weeks. George has some serious catching up to do. Anyone think he can do it? Who's got their sets turned on to the pre-election coverage already?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm sure George Bush didn't want him invited Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
I don't think a non D/R has been invited since the "mistake" of '92.
No one thought an insane, Frank-Purdue looking millionare could do well against established debaters. Perot proved them wrong.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
Ya but who are they to subjectively decide whether the public should hear Nader's opinion? Who knows, maybe it would've turned this election around from whoever it was favoring.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
They (Dems and Repubs) are the ones who organize the debate. They raised the standards after '92. It's a rigged deal.
Nader will be lucky if he can get on the ballot in 40 states.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
That's why I think we should get rid of the whole party system and have the candidates run on issues alone.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
^ | | Agrees, wishes it were so.
You know, this is an interesting first question: "Will our children ever live in a world as safe as the one we grew up in?"
Obviously, both are going to twist the question to tout their policy, but something else comes to mind: was the world "they" -- they being their generation-- grew up, was it really safe?
--j_k
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
How does the English company that had contaminated vaccine underscore the problem with our health care system?
Good segue to the prefab answer, though.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Heh-- Bush is controlling the podium-banging, this time.
--j_k
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Does Kerry get a kickback from BCBS now?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
*snort*
--j_k
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The world IS safer then the one they grew up in. The cold war was no joke, folks.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
George Bush is doing much, much better out of the gate than John Kerry. His delivery is better, his energy is higher, and his project sincerity is better. He's saying things that actually make sense and don't sound like pre-fab talking points and he's actually playing back the balls that John Kerry is hitting to him. Senatior Kerry is going to have to turn things around if he's not going to lose this debate.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
"Pay-Go" There's the soundbite.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Why is he talking about school? 50 year olds who lost their jobs don't want to go back to school.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
"Pay-go Pay-go". Wasn't that some fruity dance the redheaded guy kept pestering Barney Fife about in "Strictly Ballroom"?
Posted by DarkWizard (Member # 6186) on :
uhm i might have heard it wrong but did kerry just say something about a fictional character? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Why is he talking about school? 50 year olds who lost their jobs don't want to go back to school.
Because he can't answer the actual question. But man, what a bad way to point out that he dodged it. Come on man, say something like, "I think I might have missed something there. That question was about jobs, right? Why was he talking about schools and not about jobs?"
He's boring the crap out of me.
[ October 13, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
I've definitely lost assistance through Pell Grants and my brother didn't get any even though we needed more assistance. I'm believing Kerry there.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Bush is playing the Keep It Simple card. Say it again and again...
--j_k
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You can believe both of them. They're both right. President Bush is just being very deceptive.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Bush is starting to get high-pitched and defensive. He started out the debate okay, but he's already going downhill.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
"I don't know."
That was the best, clearest answer Bush has given all night, no sarcasm intended. Saying either yes or no would kill him.
--j_k
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Am I wrong for laughing at Kerry when he described the Constitution as "unbelievable"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bullcrap. The bishops don't have the authority to declare that a sin. If the bishops are actually doing that (and I wouldn't be suprised if the ones doing are the same three who said they'd deny John Kerry communion), than they are exceeding their authority.
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
I'm not sure who's winning yet, but Kerry seems to have been using one strategy through all 3 debates, focus on the state. So far it seems like every debate he's been talking about the statistics of that individual state where the debate is taking place. I thought it was a good idea at first but it's not as if only people from that state are listening, this is televised nationally. Also, I don't know how well the moderator is doing, it seem like the questions he's asking are just questions to put the candidate's feet on fire rather than actually try to get some decent answers here. Last thing, Kerry's hand motions are boring me, same thing over and over and over. That's all, sorry for analyzing pointless parts of the debate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see a debate format where when one of them makes a claim, that claim gets checked and we can see the results of that check. I think it would change the debates drastically.
Candidate A: <blah blah blah blah>
Moderator: Can you source that?
A: err...no.
Moderator: Because we checked up on it and your information is completely innaccurate. Were you trying to deceive us or are you just badly informed?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Gah.
Kerry: "More illegal immigrants are coming across the border now than they were before September 11th."
Bush: "No, that's not true. The borders are more secure now."
See, the thing is I have a feeling I'll never get the "truth" on that.
--j_k
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What the heck? Is the President's answer to any jobs question to talk about education?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Minimum wage... reading... yeah, that answered the question.
Increasing minimum wage has a negative impact on small business and jobs. I'm not saying we shouldn't increase minimum wage, but if he didn't want to, there are arguments he could have made that didn't have anything to do with reading.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
They're both just answering whichever question they wish the moderator would have asked. I wish he would start calling them on it.
Also, points for Bush (finally) for answering the question and shutting up instead of rambling for the rest of the time period like he did in debate #1.
[ October 13, 2004, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
This is like watching a horribly coached soccer game.
While both sides think it would be theorectically nice to win, they're really playing not to lose.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
The best way to protect people from guns is to wait until someone gets shot and then try to catch them?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And this is why I think George Bush could give a crap about actually supporting our troops. "I talked to them and they're all happy about this." Does anyone believe that this is true? Would we even need a stop-loss order if these reservists were itching to go "serve their country" for 2 or 3 tours of duty? These people deserve as much support as we can give them. They deserve to get to go back to their families after serving in dangerous and stress conditions. Does anyone really think that the troops, upon being told "Yeah, we told you that you'd be going home in a week, but instead you're going to be here for another six months...or a year...or, well, you'll get home someitme." responded with cheering support?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Oh, no, Kerry's being born again.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
The President looked just as shocked as you sound about Kerry's finding faith.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
"finding" faith? Didn't he just say he went to a Catholic school? That he was an altar boy?
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
And now, the Oprah moment.
Posted by AbeLinclon (Member # 6923) on :
Ummm.. The debate's on what are you doing online...wait what AM "I" doing online?...
I see John Kerry saying I have a plan. What is that Plan? "I will do this., I will do this, I have a plan to do this..." wehat?
*runs off to watch the debate*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is there some humor I'm missing in Abe's SN or did he simply misspell Lincoln?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I see Kerry repeatedly saying "This is a problem, and I'm going to fix it by doing X, Y, and Z, followed by a few Qs and Ns.". And Bush responding with, "See, he doesn't have a plan!"
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
...and that's a wrap.
--j_k
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know if there's any point in calling this debate. It was just bad. If I had to label winners or losers, I'd say the America people lost. Voter turnout will be lower because of this debate.
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
It looked like Kerry had one of the Lance Armstrong Foundation bracelets on.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
I just want to say kudos to the govt for C-SPAN. Split screen the entire time, with the current question they were "answering" displayed across the bottom.
Also, they're airing phone calls afterwards with viewers take. Very entertaining.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Hmmmm... this one is tough to call, I think.
Kerry was being far too nice (not unusual for him.) When Bush came out and claimed his "global test" was a veto for other countries, Kerry should have come back more aggressively - Bush was standing right next to him just a week ago when he emphatically pointed out that was not his global test. Bush needs to be held accountable for his campaign of attack ads, just as much as for his record.
Kerry also still failed to adequately explain his payment plan, and also should have mentioned that Bush is really the big government candidate here, rather than Kerry - that Bush's plan is more costly than his own, and that Bush's wars make up such a significant part of the deficit. In general, Kerry missed a lot of opportunities.
Bush, on the other hand, just didn't sound very credible on anything - just because his economic record undermined most of what he said. He kept dodging to education to escape questions about jobs. The No Child Left Behind laws are actually job laws? In an abstract sense maybe, but the people aren't going to buy that.
Both candidates looked good on the "mushy" questions - abouts religion and their women. I didn't think, though, that the question about women in their personal lives was substantive enough to warrant being the final question in the final debate. Aren't there more important things to discuss - things where the candidates will actually illustrate differences of viewpoint, rather than give out anecdotes?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
RRR: I think he did-- there was an article about the LiveSTRONG bracelets in my school's paper recently, and he was shown wearing one.
--j_k
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I must say, I loved that Bush pulled out a new program. People familiar with how he operates now know that he has little intention of doing anything substantial on immigration.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Xap, Bush supporters felt much the same after Debate 1- Why wasn't he more aggressive? But the risk of seeming unpleasant is too great.
P.S. Squicky is right, this thread is sinking like a stone.
[ October 13, 2004, 11:10 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Kerry's answers displayed more thought and a clearer understanding of specific issues. Kerry didn't do anything wrong, yet he came across as inspiring trust and vision. Bush has four years, a huge deficit, an energy lobby, and a divided nation to run on. As with the other two debates, Kerry came across as more competent, and with the thought process befitting a President of the United States.
[ October 14, 2004, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I enjoyed this debate. They really are humans...with actual senses of humor as well. I don't think anyone "won" the debate because there was nothing new and nothing done "better" this time.
I think Kerry focused alot on math and numbers. Bush focused more on message I felt.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
I loved the
"we want willing employers to mate with willing workers."
hahahahahaha
that made we laugh so hard.
Oh.
It was also hilarious when Bush "answered" the question about minimum wage.
"Minimum wage? We gotta teach the kids to read!"
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"Minimum wage? We gotta teach the kids to read!"
He isn't wrong. It's just deeper than that. If we make education for the sake of economic interests, we risk some long term stability issues, with the result being an affluent nation devoid of culture and thought. We'll have engineers o'plenty, though. It's a principle difference between Rome and Greece.
[ October 14, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote:If we make education for the sake of economic interests, we risk some long term stability issues, with the result being an affluent nation devoid of culture.
Culture is dead, baby.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I don't mean to be nitpicky, but kerry seemed very "tired" around the eyes. I'm not saying it's a negative thing at all, but his right eye facing seemed a little "slower/droopy" when he was blinking/speaking.
I know the campaign has got to be taking it out of them both, but kerry was smiling and bright during the first debate (I missed the second) but I didn't see him look his bright eyed, bushy tailed self....no pun intended.
[ October 14, 2004, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ain't it good to know he's willing to work his *ss off for the job, one which Bush (up until 9/11) kept insisting be run 9 to 5?
A six hour workday . . . wow.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It IS the weakest state Governership in the US...
Not that that is Bush's fault. It was that way for years, more of a figurhead position than a position with real power....at least compared to other states.
However, it CAN be a springboard to other positions....:
I thought Bush looked a lot metter this debate...he still sounded like he couldn't hear what the questions were, so he just answered whatever he wanted.
I though Kerry did a good job calling him out on the No Child Left Behind thing, too...he was perfevt onthat, IMO...
But Bush didn't look as bad as he did in the first Debate...
Kwea
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Fugu: No offense, but the "attendance" record of certain Senators could also be said to be an issue.
I don't think it is when talking about this debate, since neither candidate brought up either of those issues.
I think they both have been working very hard...and racking up the frequent flier miles.
[ October 14, 2004, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
One thing that I found particularly frustrating is that one candidate would make a statement and the other would flat-out claim he was lying or at least misled. This happened more than once, and generally there was very little discussion of why a fact was inaccurate. If Bush and Kerry had to provide a link to an authoritative source as is commonly done here, that would be great.
I did think this debate had a little more substance to it. Certainly there was less repetition than in the first one. However, the candidates often went in a completely different direction from the question asked. For example, in the flu vaccine question, Bush's answer was pretty much straight facts: We don't have half our supply of vaccine because the supply was contaminated. So if you're healthy, don't get a flu shot. This was a good answer, though he just had to throw something in there about legal reform. Then Kerry starts talking about having health care for every American. Yeah, that'll solve the flu vaccine shortage! The problem is that we do not have enough vaccine for everyone, not that poor people can't afford it.
Likewise, Bush tended to deflect questions about the economy by talking about education. His solution to outsourced jobs is educational training. "We'll send you to community college." He does realize that white collar jobs are being sent overseas, too, right? By all means, send an unemployed engineer with a bachelor's degree to a community college.
I thought the question about the candidate's faith was interesting. Kerry in particular seemed to take a much stronger stance on his own faith than he has in the past. In fact, he made quite a few statements that risk alienating his base. He talked about hunting, not exactly the favored liberal pasttime. And the "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" stance is also potentially a problem for him. Though I can see all of this as his attempt to reach out to the center and right, and it may be his supporters are determined enough that they won't abandon him.
At least Bush didn't mention the flip-flopping, and Kerry brought up Vietnam only once. I also found it amusing that Bush kept calling Kerry an extreme leftist when Kerry seemed fairly moderate with his advocacy of responsible goverment spending, refusal to prevent the outsourcing of jobs by coercion, and promise not to interfere with the second amendment. Yeah, he supports legal abortion, and raising the minimum wage, and all that. He's on the left, but doesn't seem to be on the fringe, not at this point.
One thing that you can't tell with the camera angles they have is that Bush figets with his foot a lot. It was kind of distracting.
Bush did a better job than last time of stating the things he had done well and had some decent wisecracks that made the audience laugh. Oh, and he stopped rambling so much. It sounded like he was much better prepared this time around and the answers didn't seem to pre-packaged.
I can't say this debate really inspired me to vote for either man, but it was very cool getting to see them in person, even if I didn't have a chance to actually meet either one.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps, but keep in mind that most Senate and committee meetings are both largely procedural and largely opportunities to grandstand (again, take a look at C-Span sometime). Attendance says little to nothing about work done.
Work day appointment schedules do say something about work done, though, and they say quite clearly that George W Bush considered being Governor of Texas to be such a low priority that he could do the entire job in a 6 hour work day.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
Unfortunately, Bush spent most of his governorship running for president.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I was a bit disturbed by some of the things I heard Kerry say. His tough talk about the border is misguided. The US border patrol already has unconstitutional powers and the right to use them arbitrarily. Also, he mentioned wanting to redeploy the national guard and reserves to help homeland defense. What could that mean -- more troops in cities and airports? Let's not become like Israel.
The word 'homeland' has begun to make me cringe.
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
Coccinelle, not true. Bush was in office from 1994 on. He was not running for President for 2/3 of his time as Governor.
quote:He served as managing general partner of the Texas Rangers until he was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with 53.5 percent of the vote. He became the first Governor in Texas history to be elected to consecutive four-year terms when he was re-elected on November 3, 1998, with 68.6 percent of the vote.
And attendance in the Senate is bunk. The only thing it matters for is close votes. You know Bush knows that, but he sticks to his talking points because he has embraced a truth-neutral approach to politics that just cost him the Presidency.
The polls are calling this a decisive Kerry victory. For the first time (I think), I get to use one of the new smileys.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
That's funny. I was on the verge of handing this to Bush. I got really frustrated with Kerry's redirection of the questions.
Just for perspective, I think Kerry is the only hope our country has for regaining ANY of what we've lost.
Posted by Coccinelle (Member # 5832) on :
Honore, thanks for correcting that for me. I just remember very heated debates from my parents during what must have been his re-election year about whether he would make a good governor since he was a potential for presidency. I also recall a very triumphant dad telling my mom "I told you so" when Bush spent the latter part of that term campaigning.
(There's a reason I don't talk about politics... it has a lot to do with my parent's heated screaming matches whenever it's election time, however it does make every election memorable.)
[ October 14, 2004, 01:43 AM: Message edited by: Coccinelle ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Did they change the rules to allow the audience to laugh?
Why does Kerry keep on using the same false jobs number that he's been called on before? Its really pissing me off because Bush is perfectly aware of it but can't say anything because while it is only half its still a negative number. As far as I'm concerned if you can't get people to believe the truth without using lies, then it probably isn't the truth.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Well, they did say to be quiet, but they didn't say not to laugh. (They specifically said don't applaud, and don't make any loud comments).
[ October 14, 2004, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Shigosei ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So you won't be voting for Bush or Kerry? Bush was still using the same "vote" numbers "for" tax raises.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Well in the first debate at least there was supposed to be absolute silence.
I don't remember anyone showing proof that the voting numbers were wrong for one thing, for another I had my mind made up long before the debates.
[ October 14, 2004, 02:03 AM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Those numbers include every procedural vote as a vote "for" tax increases. They've been handily dealt with at, among other places, factcheck.
Kerry's job numbers are actually sort of amusing (in a positive way): "Well Mr. President, if you weren't such a huge advocate of big government your job losses would be x. But I can't use those numbers because you've bloated our government bureaucracy by y."
They still represent Bush's record in creating jobs of a very relevant sort, private sector jobs, ones he can't create nearly by fiat.
The votes, on the other hand, don't represent Kerry's record in any particularly useful way at all. What general position does it reflect to know that Kerry voted to approve a rule that would allow a bill which had as one of many provisions a small tax raise to come to debate?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So technically Bush is still right on both counts. Especially since the net loss is still only half and Kerry was still voting for higher taxes even if his vote is essentially counted more than once per bill.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm sorry, but I just have to laugh .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Essentially counted more than once? Voting to bring a bill to debate is not voting for it, its voting to bring it to debate. Voting to bring a bill to vote is not voting for it, its voting to bring it to vote. These votes are called procedural for a reason, because they don't necessarily reflect any support or opposition to a bill. Sometimes one will want a bill brought to vote because one feels at this particular time it can be defeated, for instance.
Counting those votes as votes for bills is factually inaccurate.
[ October 14, 2004, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
A vote can be procedural and still be essentially in favor of or against legislation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote from the debate: "He voted to increase taxes 98 times."
factcheck.org: 'Of the 98 votes "for tax increases," 43 would not actually have increased taxes. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years.'
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: factcheck.org: 'Of the 98 votes "for tax increases," 43 would not actually have increased taxes. They were for budget bills to set target levels for spending and taxes in the coming fiscal years.'
Amazing how Factcheck disproves points while not actually disproving them.
Bush did talk about how "busting the budget" results in higher taxes so whether or not you believe Bush is fiscally responsible does not diminsh the credibility of his attacks on Kerry.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its amazing when votes for things that won't and can't increase taxes are counted as votes for tax increases.
If votes by Kerry on things that can't increase taxes get counted as votes for tax increases, then perhaps we can not count jobs that aren't part of the private economy. Seems a pretty similar semantic gap to me. I think both of them have factual problems, where you're clinging to a delusion that Bush doesn't have factual problems.
What's more, the position you defend Bush from (regarding the jobs) is one in which admitting the real position makes him look even worse! He's been growing the government to an extreme degree, completely counter to any concept of fiscal responsibility!
Posted by AbeLinclon (Member # 6923) on :
Someone earlier said that I misspelled Lincoln. Yes that is true. It was on purpose... Posted by Stark (Member # 6831) on :
"armies of compassion"????
I try not to throw around the O word but that kind of thinking scares me, looks like 1984 was off by a couple decades.
[ October 14, 2004, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Stark ]
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
By the way, the only person I have seen in this campaign actually back away from a misleading statistic is Kerry, when he said the war had cost about 120 Billion last night. Previously, he had been including money earmarked for the war that would be spent in the coming fiscal year.
Dumb flip-flopper.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The morning after a debate I go to WashingtonPost.com and read their transcript, because they post "referee" symbols throughout with popups to show the real facts behind whatever the candidate was saying.
This one was a mess. Neither man scored very well on the "honest truth" scael, both picked the numbers that backed their case, even if they had to nudge them a little. I was very disappointed.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Yeah, this was, in my opinion, the worst of the debates. Both of them played way too defensive, and neither of them gave any real answers to the questions that were asked. Too much subject changing and too many pre-fab BS answers. It was a worthless exercise that I think made them both look bad. On the plus side, though, it made the third parties look good by comparison. So I feel better about the vote I'm going to cast. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If Bush's false numbers on tax votes isn't convincing, consider his repeated claim that 75% of terrorist leaders have been captured:
quote:But as The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.
Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.
-FactCheck.org
This is at least as false as Kerry claim about jobs which, though misleading, is technically true.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
At least he did say "leaders" this time.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: He's been growing the government to an extreme degree, completely counter to any concept of fiscal responsibility!
I know we all got sick of the RNC Waving around 9/11 as a banner, but it's nice that we can essentially pretend it didn't happen, both with the impact on the economy (loss of jobs) and increasing the government.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, pooka, the terrorists won? j/k
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't want to see live debates anymore. I want to see them an hour later, with "Pop Up Video" style annotations leaping up to correct inaccuracies and exaggerations. More useful, I think, and it would really show where candidates are flailing and where they're right.
Plus, the "boyip!" sound effect would add a certain flair to the proceedings.
[ October 14, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
I prefer to see them re-enacted by Dave Letterman's stagehands dressed in beekeeper's outfits and wader boots. That may be just me, though.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
pooka --
the path from 9/11 to a need for 800,000 new government employees somehow escapes me (that's the number that have been created). Some new government employees? Perhaps, though I see many of the efforts as creating bureaucratic levels that will ultimately get in the way of preventing terrorism. 800,000? No.
Second, as has been pointed out repeatedly, ever other war we've gotten involved in (edit: in recent-ish history) has improved the economy. This would rather suggest a mismanagement on the part of the executive in a war that doesn't improve the economy.
[ October 14, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
The jobs number was another debating trick by Kerry--I'm sure he was hoping that Bush would burst out, "You forgot the public sector!" as Kerry got him to do with Poland earlier. The difference between the two gambits is that Kerry's omission of Poland was actually correct, the way he phrased it: Poland was not part of the original coalition. But there's no logical sense in omitting public sector jobs: a wage is a wage. Bush didn't bite, either because he's wised up and knew it would just make him look worse or because he's not sufficiently familiar with numbers that make him look bad.
So both candidates were deceptive. But there is no moral equivalence there, in my opinion. Bush's lies were greater in number and egregiousness, and reflect a pattern of disregard for the truth.
Happily, it's just not working for him anymore. Viewers at the time were put off by, for example, the way he repeatedly insulted Ted Kennedy and then later claimed him as a frequent ally. But his biggest tactical mistake was saying "I never said I wasn't worried about Osama. That's one of my opponent's exaggerations." Since the media loves videos, they will run that video juxtaposed with the video of Bush saying he's not worried about Osama. When he said it, I knew immediately that he could only hope for a draw. He didn't get one.
Sorry for the gloating aspect here. But I've been waiting for the So-Called Liberal Media to finally turn on this pretender for months. It may just be about to happen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But there's no logical sense in omitting public sector jobs: a wage is a wage."
Really? So if the government hired everyone in the country, we'd have 0% unemployment?
Surely the source of the wage matters a little, wouldn't you agree?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I'd say the source should definitely matter if the president is claiming "big government" doesn't work.
If big government isn't Bush's strategy, why is he replacing private jobs with government jobs?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Second, as has been pointed out repeatedly, ever other war we've gotten involved in (edit: in recent-ish history) has improved the economy. This would rather suggest a mismanagement on the part of the executive in a war that doesn't improve the economy.
How many other wars were begun by an attack that was devastating to the economy? I don't know about you all, but as self-employed in a luxury service market, 2001-2002 was wretched economically. The war has improved the economy immensely. Sure that it isn't quite to where it was before the attacks. Your are saying there are 800K new jobs and this still represents a net loss. I don't think you can deny that Sept. 11 was devastating to the economy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, there are 800,000 new public sector jobs -- and a loss of 1.6 million private sector jobs, still an immense net loss (especially considering how we haven't lost jobs over the course of a presidential term in decades).
While many public sector jobs are useful and necessary, many are not. Private business is a better way of organizing the labor market in most cases.
Also, I rather suspect you'll find most of the issues in the luxury service job market were due to coming off the 90s tech boom. Lots of those businesses channeled lots of their money into luxury perks for their employees and such. Also, people were using stock value supported ideas of personal worth to justify major luxury purchases. With those markets mostly gone, the luxury market lost a lot of its highest margin customers.
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Did anyone else notice that someone was so into his debate that he was letting the spit build up in the right corner of his mouth?
Breathe, lick your lips and swallow!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And we all know that big governmental beauracracies know how to pay their employies well, making sure our tax dollars are used in the most efficient way and in ways fair to all levels of the department.
These are all reasons that it was a good debate strategy. That doesn't make it true.
Speaking of debate strategy, I thought it was odd that they both got so nice towards the end. I think the mod might have been pushing them in that direction with how he organized the questions, but still...given the nastiness that Bush has been spewing towards Kerry, and Kerry surrogates have been spewing towards Bush, I guess it was somewhat refreshing. According to some lipreaders on other forums, Bush approached Kerry afterwards to propose that they meet later (it's ambiguous whether he said "later tonight" or "after the election"), and Kerry agreed.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
I read somewhere ( I can't recall where nor can I find the link again) that the U.S. needs to generate 1.3 million jobs per year just to keep up with the population It was also stated that there have only been 1.7 million jobs created THIS year. If supposition one is correct, then the highly touted job creation for this year isn't all that great. Some one (maybe one of our Econ types) could you check further into this to determine the validity of this?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I was disappointed that Kerry didn't say something about the price gouging that's going on with the flu vaccine when asked about the current crisis.
I was also disappointed - again - when I think Kerry missed an opportunity to talk about the divisions in Congress. Back when the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, some Republican congressional leaders admitted to being troubled by the fact that that Bush had not met with any Democratic leaders in Congress. (OK, to be fair, they also said he met with few Republican congressional leaders as well, but Kerry could have left that out. It's not like Bush could say, "hey, I didn't meet with Republicans either.")
The charge could be fairly laid that Bush hasn't done much to foster bipartisanship since we invaded Iraq.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That because when a democrat (i.e. Clinton) engages troops all dissent (i.e. impeachment hearings) is dropped so the Republicans can express support. As I recall, that didn't happen when we invaded Iraq.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
But it did happen with Afghanistan.
Bottom line, starting an illegitimate war will make you some enemies.
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
quote: Pooka: That because when a democrat (i.e. Clinton) engages troops all dissent (i.e. impeachment hearings) is dropped so the Republicans can express support.
KHAAAAAAAAAAAN!
quote:
President (then-candidate) George W. Bush "Bush, in Austin, criticized President Clinton's administration for not doing enough to enunciate a goal for the Kosovo military action and indicated the bombing campaign might not be a tough enough response. 'Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is,' Bush said." [Houston Chronicle, 4/9/99]
Attorney General (then-Senator) John Ashcroft "A lackluster air campaign has given the Serb dictator Milosevic time to achieve most of his strategic goals in Kosovo." [New York Times, 4/8/99]
House Majority Leader (then-Whip) Tom DeLay "I cannot support a failed foreign policy... But before we get deeper embroiled into this Balkan quagmire, I think that an assessment has to be made of the Kosovo policy so far. President Clinton has never explained to the American people why he was involving the U.S. military in a civil war in a sovereign nation, other than to say it is for humanitarian reasons, a new military/foreign policy precedent." [Congressional Record, "Removal of United States Armed Forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia," 4/28/99]
House Speaker Dennis Hastert "Many may question the path that has taken us to this point. I have my own questions about the long term strategy of this campaign." [Dallas Morning News, 3/25/99]
Senator (then-Assistant Majority Leader) Don Nickles "The Administration, and NATO as a whole, greatly miscalculated the response Slobodan Milosevic would have to a bombing campaign. As I predicted, the Administration has escalated what was guerilla warfare into a much more serious conflict. The bombings have unleashed an evil reign and resulted in a humanitarian disaster." [Senator Don Nickles, Press Release, 4/21/99]
Senator Judd Gregg "I don't believe that a ground war in Kosovo using American troops is going to be very successful." [NBC, "Meet the Press," 4/18/99]
Senator Richard Lugar "This is President Clinton's war, and when he falls flat on his face, that's his problem." [New York Times, 5/4/99]
Thanks, Honore. It's not like every conservative on the planet wasn't saying he did it to hide the Lewinsky scandal.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Wow! Great quotes!
Here's something I dug up that's an analysis of the president's power to make war.
quote: Similarly, President Clinton prepared to invade Haiti while arguing that a U.N. peacekeeping mission was not "war " that required Congress' approval. "I would strenuously oppose such attempts to encroach on the President's foreign policy powers."20 "Like my predecessors of both parties," he said, "I have not agreed that I was constitutionally mandated to get [approval]."21 In a Defense Department appropriations measure Congress made funding for the Haiti operation contingent on a Presidential report of findings. Rather than expressly authorizing military intervention, Congress had instead voted that funds were not "off limits" for an invasion.22
Immediately after taking office, Clinton had pledged 20,000 U.S. peacekeepers as part of a multilateral force to be deployed in Bosnia. House Republican leaders lost a vote to repeal the War Powers Resolution because some defectors wanted to retain the 1973 law as a check on Clinton’s ability to keep that promise.23
Without interference by Congress, Clinton waged a limited NATO air war against Serbs in Bosnia--Operation Deliberate Force or Dead Eye. Before the Dayton peace negotiations had concluded, the House of Representatives voted twice against U.S. troop deployment in Bosnia. Republican Senator John Ashcroft unsuccessfully objected to the President amending the NATO Treaty without Senate ratification. Article 5 of the 1949 Washington Treaty limited NATO to collective defense of members' territory. Without satisfying the Constitutional requirement of Senate approval, Clinton gave the alliance a new post Cold War mission. "NATO has expanded and will continue to expand its political functions, and taken on new missions of peacekeeping and crisis management in support of the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) . . ."24
After Clinton announced the Dayton Peace Accord, Congress appropriated funds for the 20,000 U.S. peacekeepers in Operation Joint Endeavor; the House measure also expressly disapproved the administration policy.25 "Some members of Congress] wanted to have it both ways: to avoid responsibility for a bad outcome in Bosnia but to share in the political fruits of a good outcome . . . they said the mission was not worth fighting for, and then they off handedly accepted that American soldiers should be sent to fight for it."26
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
There's the soundbite.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)