Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Hi all. Your friendly neighborhood undecided voter here.

Did you watch the Daily Show's segment on undecided voters last night?

Originally posted by soup sandwich
Stylistically, Bush needs to work on his facial expressions while his opponent is speaking. Also, he continued to stare off to his left while Kerry spoke. It gave me the impression he was looking to his handlers in the audience for debating tips. The "writing with a pen" thing that Kerry does is clearly just for show, but I think it's effective because it keeps his head down (thus avoiding looking like a dimwit while his opponent speaks) and makes him look thoughtful.

I wonder whether the pissed-off looks were a calculated thing -- as in "this guy is such a flip-flopper that I can't stand it." That Karl Rove is one clever fellow, so I wouldn't put it past them. However, Dan Bartlett (the White House Communications Director) said on NBC this morning that President Bush is just a heart on his sleeve kinda guy, and he had some honest reactions.

This alternative -- if true -- means that I want to play high stakes poker against the Prez. Or sit on the other side of a negotiating table. If he can't keep his reactions and feelings hidden, maybe this is why he doesn't think that diplomacy works.

Originally posted by soup sandwich
The split screen views of both candidates was interesting. As Bush is about 3 inches shorter than Kerry, Bush's people had to make a decision:
1) have the podium heights be equal during split shots, or
2) have the tops of the candidates' heads be equal during split shots.

Bush's people chose 2), with the result being the podium heights were distractingly out of whack. If they're so concerned with not having the height difference emphasized, they should negotiate for no split screen shots next time.

They did. The networks disregarded the rule, and ran the split screen a lot (at least on NBC). But, according to Bartlett, the GOP knew this would happen, and he told the president that split screens would happen.

And, you know it's a bad result when a friendly paper (the New York Post) ain't even pretending to buy what you're selling:

• Karl Rove must have known things didn't go well when the New York Post asked him whether this was the worst debate of President Bush's life. No, Rove insisted. This was one of the president's best debates, and one of John Kerry's worst. "Really?" asked the reporter, Vince Morris. "You can say that with a straight face?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2107516/

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It was a debate. Yes, you have to listen. Sometimes that involves turning down foxnews.

For the record, I listened on NPR

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not Bob
[debate stuff]

Not that it matters. This may just delay the inevitable. The Yankees will probably win it all. Bastards.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I know these comments are part of the script, but after last night, you've lost credibility - people saw Kerry was giving thoughtful, honest answers with depth while Bush replayed the mantra like his handlers told him.

At some point a Presidential campaign has to go beyond the attack-mantra mode, and Bush is failing there.

Go back and watch the tape (I did). Kerry appears to give very, thoughtful and meaningful answers and has a very dignified delivery style. But there is nothing there. It's alll delivery for him, no substance. Now Bush isn't exactly Aristotle either, but I thought he did much better the second time I watched than the first.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

At some point a Presidential campaign has to go beyond the attack-mantra mode, and Bush is failing there.

Kerry has, and had, the greatest opportunity to broadside Bush with a KO haymaker, and he let it slide...

Bush's mantra, indeed his entire pitch to the public, is that he is the best man to "Get the Iraq mess figured out." That is akin to saying "I made the mess, so I'm the best man to clean it up." That is not a strong argument, not even to the stupidest voter. Kerry could have said "So, Mr. Bush, your argument is that because you took us over the falls, you're most familiar with how to climb back up them" or "Does a company keep a CEO who's run the company into bankruptcy because 'He's most familiar with how the company came to be in such dire straits'?" Of course not. You don't get a medal for rescuing someone from peril you put them in. A Kerry ad should say "Bush is trying to put the American voters between the proverbial rock and hard place by making a huge mess and then arguing that he's the only ,man who can get us out of the mess. Bush may call that plain speaking, but in plain terms, that is called stupid, or worse, cynical and manipulative."

[ilikenewsocks]

I'm not sure how the Rand Corporation fits into all of this, but did you know that the government has convinced the hardware and software industries to build anti-counterfeiting technology into their products?

You have to love the idea of a popup box that says, essentially, "Bad User! Go to this website or else!".

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
Go back and watch the tape (I did). Kerry appears to give very, thoughtful and meaningful answers and has a very dignified delivery style. But there is nothing there. It's alll delivery for him, no substance. Now Bush isn't exactly Aristotle either, but I thought he did much better the second time I watched than the first.

Katie Couric and a panel of 5 "undecided" voters tell me this morning that Kerry won. Isn't this enough for you?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Examples that show our President is respected and influential througout the world, even if his views aren't always agreed with.

Old Europe and Red China hated Ronald Regan, too.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Go back and watch the tape (I did). Kerry appears to give very, thoughtful and meaningful answers and has a very dignified delivery style. But there is nothing there. It's alll delivery for him, no substance. Now Bush isn't exactly Aristotle either, but I thought he did much better the second time I watched than the first.

And another thing, this whole "we have to maintain the offensive in this war" could have been hammered home 50 different ways til Sunday, instead of being repeated as a sound bite 50 times.

America and most other nations will repeatedly make mistakes about sitting back and praying for peace. Even the original JFK wrote a book or something on it, about "While We Slept". At least, I think he did. Who wins in these never-ending wars? The smart general who maintains the offensive effectively. Reagan, with proxy armies and star wars weapons, not Carter with an "our defeat is inevitable" mentality and not [my opponent] with a "we should wait for Europe to triple its GDP contributions to defense, though they never matched ours in even the cold war". If history has taught us anything, its that no peaceful and civilized nation can sit back and pray. America cannot wait for help from others, though the help of our friends is always appreciated. America must identify its enemies and attack them when attacking them is the best way to make sure they cannot inflict grave damage on us.

But instead, all we get is we need to stay on the offensive here. This whole election sucks.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
If history has taught us anything, its that no peaceful and civilized nation can sit back and pray. America cannot wait for help from others, though the help of our friends is always appreciated. America must identify its enemies and attack them when attacking them is the best way to make sure they cannot inflict grave damage on us.

Which is why we attacked a secular, marginalized, tin pot dictatorship.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Guiliani might be a good candidate, but a talking head he is not. Sure, Jon Stewart was a complete partisan and totally underprepared to boot, but so was Rudy, and Guiliani's defense of W's performance was embarrassing to all three of them. "Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction"? It's like Sorkin's writing the dialog --- making the GOP sound stupider than it is.

I thought it was quite a coup for TDS to get what my guess is would be the two nominees in 2008, if Bush wins in 2004. But appearing on TDS last night was a bad, bad move for Rudy. He sounded really disingenuous; Clark sounded much better. And I think this had more to do with preparation than anything else. Fortunately for Rudy, he's got four years to live it down. Still, after last night I'm not sure I can take Rudy as seriously as before.*



* Despite appearances to the contrary, I'm not quite as rabid as one might think. I was genuinely undecided in both 1992 and 96 until very close to the end, and would have voted for McCain in 2000. I'm more anti-Bush Jr. than anti-Republican. I'd vote for Rudy over Kerry, but probably not over Clark.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Which is why we attacked a secular, marginalized, tin pot dictatorship.

Ya know, for this offensive thingy to work, we gotta be attacking somebody.

[dtb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Kerry has, and had, the greatest opportunity to broadside Bush with a KO haymaker, and he let it slide...

Bush's mantra, indeed his entire pitch to the public, is that he is the best man to "Get the Iraq mess figured out." That is akin to saying "I made the mess, so I'm the best man to clean it up." That is not a strong argument, not even to the stupidest voter. Kerry could have said "So, Mr. Bush, your argument is that because you took us over the falls, you're most familiar with how to climb back up them" or "Does a company keep a CEO who's run the company into bankruptcy because 'He's most familiar with how the company came to be in such dire straits'?" Of course not. You don't get a medal for rescuing someone from peril you put them in. A Kerry ad should say "Bush is trying to put the American voters between the proverbial rock and hard place by making a huge mess and then arguing that he's the only ,man who can get us out of the mess. Bush may call that plain speaking, but in plain terms, that is called stupid, or worse, cynical and manipulative."

The difficulty with that approach (and I agree it would be an effective one were it not for what I'm about to say), is that Bush refuses to acknowledge that there is even a problem in Iraq. To hear him talk about it, everything is going just swimmingly. Notwithstanding the fact that virtually every news-gathering organization in the world believes Iraq is in complete and utter chaos.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Which is why we attacked a secular, marginalized, tin pot dictatorship.

Iraq=flypaper. Regardless of the reasons we attacked, the outcome has been car bombs driven by arabs killing other arabs on arab soil (and unfortunately also US soldiers). But since we invaded Iraq, no planes flying into skyscrapers in US cities and no car bombs in the Mall of America. The arab/muslim terrorists are less focused on Israel since we invaded Iraq, too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by baltassoc There is some part of me, however, that hopes that some people in America can say to themselves "he just said the same four sentences over and over for 90 minutes. where's the substance?" But I don't have my hopes too high.

My eight year old saw a chunk of the debate last night (1/2 hour in the middle - she woke up and came down while we were watching). I asked her what she thought this morning. Her answer: "Bush kept saying the same thing over and over - did he think we weren't listening the first time?"

There you have it - Bush's pitch insulted the intelligence of an 8 year old. In his defense, she's a very smart girl.