Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Further proof of the predisposition of the listeners.

I laughed aloud at Kerry's tough defense claims and his small government soundbites.

What the Left fails to realize, is that the ABK vote has grown so strong that it almost rivals the ABB vote.

On an intellectual level, a very difficult thing for the right to come to terms with is that this is a President who has expanded government employment by over 800,000 jobs, abandoned Gramm-Rudman, embraced deficit spending, and generally followed economic policies at odds with what the right has stood for over the last thirty years. In the post-Clinton age, Democrats now own fiscal responsibility as an issue, and "big government liberal" no longer rings true.

I expect this is going to be a topic conservatives get to debate in depth and openly after the election, whoever wins. Until then, I know you've got to keep the game face on.

[Flanders]

A better showing by dubya, but WTH there was only one way to move. This cracks me up though. Kind of like Cheney, would have made for a good zinger had it been true:

Timber

KERRY: The President got $84 from a timber company that he owns that he's counted as a small business…

BUSH: I own a timber company? That's news to me.

REALITY:

“President Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business owner" under the Republican definition, based on his 2001 federal income tax returns. He reported $84 of business income from his part ownership of a timber-growing enterprise. However, 99.99% of Bush's total income came from other sources that year. (Bush also qualified as a "small business owner" in 2000 based on $314 of "business income," but not in 2002 and 2003 when he reported his timber income as "royalties" on a different tax schedule.)” [Factcheck.org; 9/23/04]

ABC: Peter Jennings, 10.50: Mr. Bush looked up and said ‘I own a timber company? And we all sort of looked at one another and said who was right? Well it turns out Senator Kerry was right.

NBC 10:50-11:00, Brian Williams: Joke about timber – President once owned a small share of the timber business – Bush according to FactCheck.org reported $84 of business, that would have qualified him as a small business owner.

St. Louis Post Dispatch 9:15: At one point, Kerry said Bush's timber company would benefit from economic proposals, and Bush countered: "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
And Kerry's response that sanctions were working because there were no WMD's would be a highlight for him if only the response made sense. Did the sanctions cause Saddam to comply with UN resolutions? No they did not. The sanctions were not working.

Containment was working, and the sanctions were part of containment. The sanctions helped keep materiel out of Iraq.

[Replaced_Texan]

From Kos.

• Mort Kondracke: "... I think Kerry won this debate as he won the first debate I don't think... I thought that Kerry was much more aggressive and the president was basically on the defense and didn't have new arguments didn't have...wasn't as facile as he should have been." [Fox News Channel, 10/8/04]
  
  Bill Kristol: "I guess I think if you think the President was doing okay and didn't need a win in this debate, he did fine, but I think, if one thinks that Bush missed an awful lot of opportunities to go after Kerry in the first debate he had to make some of them up in this debate, I'm not sure he really succeeded in doing so." [Fox New Channel, 10/8/04]
  
  Brit Hume: "Is it now fair to say that in each of these debates in terms of marshaling arguments, and remembering them and presenting them that this is something John Kerry has proved he is very good at. And that it doesn't play to the president's strong suit." [Fox News Channel, 10/8/04]
  
  Mort Kondracke: "I thought [Kerry] was very effective. I thought that he was also on the attack a lot and frankly I thought that the President seemed to be on the defense a lot and trying to explain things and not explaining them all that well." [Fox News Channel, 10/8/04]
  
  Tim Russert: "John Kerry, also, energetic, forceful." [NBC, 10/8/04]
  
  Jonah Goldberg: "On the question of whether Bush did everything he needed to tonight, I don't think so. I think he helped himself, but Kerry leaves these debates energized." [National Review Online, 10/8/04]
  
  Mark Shields: "He just absolutely, I thought, demolished the President's claims about the coalition in Iraq." [PBS, 10/8/04]
  
  James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly: [Kerry's best moment] "I think his best moment was at the series of new lines. Again like this Missouri line of saying that that I was able to do with some of my votes in the Senate what you have failed to do, which is balance the budget, so I think it was the general vividness of his approach." [CBS, 10/8/04]
  
  Perry Bacon: "I actually was struck that Kerry was pretty strong, I thought, in the foreign policy section, actually, and sort of hit the president hard on that." [CNN, 10/8/04]

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Well, I'm just relieved that President Bush won't appoint a Supreme Court justice who believes Dred Scott is good law.

I'm trying to think of a rational explanation for bringing up Dread Scott in that question. The only thing that I can think of is that someone suggested it as a good example of why constitutional amendments can be a good thing, in case someone asked about the gay marriage amendment and he wanted to show that he knew a few Supreme Court cases.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
On an intellectual level, a very difficult thing for the right to come to terms with is that this is a President who has expanded government employment by over 800,000 jobs, abandoned Gramm-Rudman, embraced deficit spending, and generally followed economic policies at odds with what the right has stood for over the last thirty years. In the post-Clinton age, Democrats now own fiscal responsibility as an issue, and "big government liberal" no longer rings true.

I expect this is going to be a topic conservatives get to debate in depth and openly after the election, whoever wins. Until then, I know you've got to keep the game face on.

I will concede this last point and happily agree with you.

There is going to be a day of reckoning down the road when the Republicans will square off amongst ourselves and fight - the party of small government is getting fat, lazy and content now that we're in power and don't seem to be losing it (the Congress) any time soon*

However - IMHO - this is secondary right now. Foreign affairs are and should be the primary issue these days.

Secondly, as bad as the GOP has been on the domestic spending front - and they have been abhorrent - for you to claim that the Dems now "own" fiscal responsibility is not only misleading, but laughable. Kerry tonight claims to be FOR a tax cut AND the expansion of tens of government programs. Please tell me how he and the Dems are for reducing spending?


* My buddy Less - more conservative than he ever puts out here - has always argued the virtues of gridlock.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Containment was working, and the sanctions were part of containment. The sanctions helped keep materiel out of Iraq.

France and Russia were working (and succeeding) with eroding the sanctions.

That Iraq report - from the excerpts that I've read - is quite compelling.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
From Kos.

• Mort Kondracke: "... I think Kerry won this debate as he won the first debate I don't think... I thought that Kerry was much more aggressive and the president was basically on the defense and didn't have new arguments didn't have...wasn't as facile as he should have been." [Fox News Channel, 10/8/04]
  
  Bill Kristol: "I guess I think if you think the President was doing okay and didn't need a win in this debate, he did fine, but I think, if one thinks that Bush missed an awful lot of opportunities to go after Kerry in the first debate he had to make some of them up in this debate, I'm not sure he really succeeded in doing so." [Fox New Channel, 10/8/04]
  
  Brit Hume: "Is it now fair to say that in each of these debates in terms of marshaling arguments, and remembering them and presenting them that this is something John Kerry has proved he is very good at. And that it doesn't play to the president's strong suit." [Fox News Channel, 10/8/04]
  
  Mort Kondracke: "I thought [Kerry] was very effective. I thought that he was also on the attack a lot and frankly I thought that the President seemed to be on the defense a lot and trying to explain things and not explaining them all that well." [Fox News Channel, 10/8/04]
  
  Tim Russert: "John Kerry, also, energetic, forceful." [NBC, 10/8/04]
  
  Jonah Goldberg: "On the question of whether Bush did everything he needed to tonight, I don't think so. I think he helped himself, but Kerry leaves these debates energized." [National Review Online, 10/8/04]
  
  Mark Shields: "He just absolutely, I thought, demolished the President's claims about the coalition in Iraq." [PBS, 10/8/04]
  
  James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly: [Kerry's best moment] "I think his best moment was at the series of new lines. Again like this Missouri line of saying that that I was able to do with some of my votes in the Senate what you have failed to do, which is balance the budget, so I think it was the general vividness of his approach." [CBS, 10/8/04]
  
  Perry Bacon: "I actually was struck that Kerry was pretty strong, I thought, in the foreign policy section, actually, and sort of hit the president hard on that." [CNN, 10/8/04]

As idiotic as Kos is, I give them credit for gleaning the most negative comments from all these right-leaning commentators.

Except, of course, Shields. This dottering fool makes Dowd sound cnetrist.

[SlaveNoMore]

Replaced_Texan
From Kos.

From Josh Marshall:

listened to the whole thing very carefully, I thought it was basically a draw.

Knowing Josh's bias', Bush must have kicked to get this type of answer.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Rumour has it that the books were "destroyed" on the front lawn of the Naval Observatory in DC, with kerosene and a match. The Vice President was also reported to be in attendance, although the shadows cast by the flickering light of the bonfire, and the obscuring of his features by the tall upward collar of his black robe, caused reports on the sighting to differ.

Seriously, I wonder what the reaction would be if something like this were to have occurred at any time during the Clinton Administration.

Cry me a river. Find the "news" in some paper that doesn't turn the "right" story into an effin editorial every time, and then tell it, maybe. She objected that the pamphlets were produced, with USA money, by someone with a decidedly anti-USA bent. Someone else listened. Good for them.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
On an intellectual level, a very difficult thing for the right to come to terms with is that this is a President who has expanded government employment by over 800,000 jobs, abandoned Gramm-Rudman, embraced deficit spending, and generally followed economic policies at odds with what the right has stood for over the last thirty years. In the post-Clinton age, Democrats now own fiscal responsibility as an issue, and "big government liberal" no longer rings true.

But, in balance, the other choice will leave us all with Sharia.

[Replaced_Texan]

Joe Lockhart, who presumably should have better things to do right now, just sent me an e-mail:

• Dear [RT],
  
  Two presidential debates and two clear wins. John Kerry is going to be the next president of the United States, and more people know it now than just two short hours ago.
  
  Tonight, George Bush had another chance to make his case to the American people. Again he failed.
  
  Again, he showed that he is out of touch with reality on Iraq.
  Again, he offered no plan for jobs and no plan for cutting the cost of health care.
  Again, he pretended that our problems don't exist.
  Again, he refused to level with the American people.
  George Bush just doesn't get it, so he can't fix it.
  
  John Kerry held George Bush accountable for the failures of the last four years. He demonstrated the strength and character we need in a president. He made it clear he could lead as commander in chief.
  
  John Kerry offered real solutions to real problems. He told America the truth, and offered a plan for a fresh start on the economy, Iraq, and the war on terror. Simply put, he was presidential. Ironically, the president was not.
  
  Right now, I'm here on the front lines in St. Louis. Down the hall is what they call the "spin room." It is where Republican operatives are trying to put their best face on what was another clear victory for John Kerry. I've done this a few times before, and I can tell you firsthand that my job is a lot easier when our candidate has a big night like John Kerry did tonight.
  
  I know, and more importantly John Kerry knows, how hard YOU are going to work to make sure the Bush campaign doesn't spin this debate.
  
  Here is what you can do:
  
  1) Call into talk radio
  
  http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/speakout
  2) Write local newspapers
  
  http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/speakout
  Sincerely,
  
  Joe Lockhart
  Senior Advisor

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Joe Lockhart, who presumably should have better things to do right now, just sent me an e-mail:

Think he wrote all of that after the debate was over?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(National Review picture

Hey, Ty:

I can't find this cover anywhere in the current issue site.

How did you find this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Hey, Ty:

I can't find this cover anywhere in the current issue site.

How did you find this?

It's here on the National Review's site, a link I found on Andrew Sullivan's blog.

eta: Not to worry -- later they say not to judge the magazine by its cover.