Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Okay, give Kerry's social policies a -.9. Still better than Bush's -1 wingnuts.

I can accept such a position as coming from a sane person. Not a Right person, but a sane person.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
I'm an angry populist.

You are an angry self-centrist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Clinton is responsible for internet boom

Now if I can only find a way to get you to put your usual "70% of the country agrees" tagline in front of that statement, my plan will be complete.

[SlaveNoMore]

Did you just call me Coltrane?
I think even the most staunch Bush supporters on this board would prefer the opposite. Of course, while I'm voting for him, I'm not sure Kerry will give us that.

2

And don't forget the evil Zsa Zsa factor.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You are an angry self-centrist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

True. It's hard to be a populist when, deep down, you really don't like people.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
You are an angry self-centrist.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Ok, but what's your point?

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Kerry is too vulnerable in this debate.

The debates are less about substance and more about composure. Kerry never smiles, he just makes that face where he looks like he's about to take a shit. He just doesn't look comfortable. Bush is loosey goosey, almost goofey at times. But he smiles and looks in control. So even if Kerry whips him substantively, the debate will still be viewed as very close because Bush will look control.

Yesterday I'd probably have agreed with you, but last night I saw that Fallows guy do what I presume is a similar presentation to the one Gatti saw, including some clips from W's 94 TX debates and Kerry's '96 Senate debates.

Kerry is just not the same guy in a debate format, and God help me I have no idea why Debate Kerry isn't doing the campaigning while Stump Kerry is kidnapped and held at an undisclosed location until December. It's not that he's such a great communicator, but he makes his points quickly and cleanly, and puts some emotion behind it. Far cry from his normal meanderings. Also he's willing to joke a little. Weld was certainly the more entertaining of the two, but Kerry was not the stiff that we see in the news clips.

The Bush team was smart to keep Kerry from being able to move around and ask questions directly of Bush, since it may cause Debate Kerry to yield the floor back to Stump Kerry. If that happens, it will be lights out. Bush is definitely in control as a debater, and in fact looked better in 94 than I even remember from the '00 debates with Gore. What sells with Bush is exactly what comes through in the debate: "I may not know spit about arguing with this dandified Frenchman, but I know what I know, and what I know is that I'm the President and we're taking the fight to the terrorists."

It's going to be weird to watch these debates and know that what matters is not what the men are saying but rather is how they come across to some undecided (and presumably ill-informed) voter in Wisconsin/Ohio/Florida/insert name of state actually in play.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I dislike Bush's social policies with every fiber of my being, but I hate Kerry's economic policies more, so I'm stuck voting for W.

This is not an academic exercise. With the GOP Congress, Bush has every chance of implementing his social policies, but Kerry has no chance of implementing his economic policies. Libertarians should vote for Kerry in this election, because it's a prescription for gridlock, which means government does less.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Yesterday I'd probably have agreed with you, but last night I saw that Fallows guy do what I presume is a similar presentation to the one Gatti saw, including some clips from W's 94 TX debates and Kerry's '96 Senate debates.

Yep, that's the one (though mine was on radio). The danger for each side's partisans is succumbing to the temptation to extrapolate too far from Bush's abysmal press conferences or otherwise "extemperaneous" interviews, or from Kerry's speeches.

It's going to be weird to watch these debates and know that what matters is not what the men are saying but rather is how they come across to some undecided (and presumably ill-informed) voter in Wisconsin/Ohio/Florida/insert name of state actually in play.

No kidding. I try to occasionally watch the TV shows with "focus groups" comprised of presumably undecided voters in swing states. When asked their opinions, the justifications offered in defense of either candidate makes me wonder how democracy functions effectively in this country.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is not an academic exercise. With the GOP Congress, Bush has every chance of implementing his social policies, but Kerry has no chance of implementing his economic policies. Libertarians should vote for Kerry in this election, because it's a prescription for gridlock, which means government does less.

True. For that matter, a Kerry Administration would probably see a GOP Congress riding Kerry's ass to fight, bomb and nuke terrorists harder than anything this side of the Mustang Ranch, so that may provide some (marginal) comfort to those on this board fearing Chirac's camping out in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Makes me wonder why there's not an "Americans for Gridlock" 527 out there somewhere.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
True. For that matter, a Kerry Administration would probably see a GOP Congress riding Kerry's ass to fight, bomb and nuke terrorists harder than anything this side of the Mustang Ranch, so that may provide some (marginal) comfort to those on this board fearing Chirac's camping out in the Lincoln Bedroom.

Makes me wonder why there's not an "Americans for Gridlock" 527 out there somewhere.

For me, it's not like I have grand hopes for a Kerry administration. If he's elected, he'll have such a mess to clean up after, in Iraq and with the budget, and he'll have a GOP Congress to deal with. In that situation, treading water would be a victory.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Viewers of Jon Stewart's show are more likely to have completed four years of college than people who watch "The O'Reilly Factor," according to Nielsen Media Research.

Not only that, Daily Show viewers are more informed politically than viewers of other late night talk shows. And "Daily Show" viewers were more informed on election issues than people who regularly read newspapers or watch television news.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/0...ics/index.html

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This is not an academic exercise. With the GOP Congress, Bush has every chance of implementing his social policies, but Kerry has no chance of implementing his economic policies. Libertarians should vote for Kerry in this election, because it's a prescription for gridlock, which means government does less.

Thats an excellent point, but I'm also of the opinion that the GOP will lose big in the midterms and we'll get gridlock anyway.

People like Snow and Chaffee are not going to let Bush go hard core right wing on social issues. You'll see some serious aisle-crossing and bipartisan fillibustering if Bush tries to stock the Court with lunatics.

I almost want Bush in just so that we can get this battle with the social conservatives over with. As long as we have these dim fucking waterheads out there manipulating policy, there will always be a sort of domestic cultural cold war. Lets bring it to a boil and smoke out the moderates. Lets make the people who believe in fiscal restraint and social liberalism stand up and admit it. I want the middle to stand up and tell these Jesus Freaks to shut the fuck up, and that won't happen in a Kerry presidency. We need the Vietnam protests again and all the other 60s upheaval to flip back the social conservativism.

And I want any excuse to take drugs, quit my job and act like an ass.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
People like Snow and Chaffee are not going to let Bush go hard core right wing on social issues. You'll see some serious aisle-crossing and bipartisan fillibustering if Bush tries to stock the Court with lunatics.

You're kidding, right? Snow and Chaffee can be counted on to do as much as they've done for the last few years, no more, no less. And Bush doesn't need to put lunatics on the Court -- he just needs to replace Stevens and O'Connor with a pair of justices who will reliably vote with Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
Ok, but what's your point?

Like you, when do I ever have a point?

Apropos of nothing, did you see the new Victoria's Secret ads using Monkey Man? Has Sir Jagger no shame?