Debate reaction

[mnaz]

Granted, I'm just one of billions here. To understand "billions", I suggest cable TV, a good internet connection and the inevitable resulting mind scrape or two.

Most people ignore such nonsense, given half a chance; those intractable numbers which are too easily pimped for advantage (and I haven't even gotten to "trillions" yet). This is an important election. My vote might be responsible for the future of mankind.... the polls say so, and rebelling against polls is irresponsible, except that some polls beg for us to be irresponsible, which might be nonsense, which is not all that bad.... In fact, nonsense might well lead us into the future. I saw that pretty clearly tonight, even if I don't have a firm handle on the "billions" and "trillions" flying around. Many people thought this "debate" was a draw....

Go figure.

[hester_prynne]

I read the following statement yesterday in a letter to the editor by a citizen of the small county I live in, and I have been thinking about it ever since. It's really distracted me.

"When the rich attack the poor, it's war. When the poor attack the rich, it's terrorism."

I don't know what I think about this statement really, I just keep mulling it over. As much as I don't like it, it rings so true in my gut. Is it a truth? Is it too simple? Do I really have that small of a chance of ever being heard? Is anything I say against the rich, the greeders, the current administration in our country, just going to always be interpreted as me being a terrorist?

How do you interpret the above statement?
H

[mnaz]

What the hell is wrong with us?

How can anyone in their right mind watch George W. Bush smirk at the camera while talking of "credibility" and still buy into it? I just don't get it. If any one of those blind Republican backers being interviewed screwed up at their jobs as badly as Bush has screwed up at his, they would be fired. It's unbelievable to me. Methinks I should refrain from watching the third debate. I'll just call it Deaf Ears, Part 3, and go bowling or something.

[mnaz]

hey hesty, you snuck in a message on me...

I've heard versions of that idea also, and I'm not sure I buy it.
Terrorism has a very specific meaning.

As much as I'm uncomfortable with "good" and "evil" stickers flying around, if anything ever deserved to be called "evil", terrorism does. Terrorists claim to be martyrs, but that is false.... morally bankrupt and even illogical. The thing that frustrates me is that these right-wingers are so goddamned wrapped up in their own hubris and drowning in their own synthetic patriotic stew that they can't even recognize that Bush is pushing the Middle East to the brink and breeding innumerable terrorists in the process. We are anything but "safer than we were". Their man, Bush, is an enormous screw-up, yet no one will admit it. Jeez.....

The plane is going down, people! For godssake, pull down an oxygen mask and get some air!....

[Doreen Peri]

I'm so happy it turned out like it did. Bush's performance was totally embarrassing. He got pissed and interupeted Charlie Gibson, then ranted out there flailing his arms. His face twitched and smirked when Kerry was talking ..... he was sweating and clearly nervous as hell... totally on the defensive. Because you know why? He couldn't refute the facts that Kerry was stating. He had no way to defend himself other than to have a quick wit and sharp tongue and be fast on his feet to come back with facts to refute Kerry's statements... which of course, he couldn't do.

This debate should go down in history as one of the most embarrassing presentations of any president.

I agree, mnaz. How anybody could continue to support him after such a display is beyond me.

And yet, of course, right after the debate, there was the Republican spin team speaking on camera saying how strong Bush was and how they thought he won the damn thing.

*shaking my head*

I sure hope the undecided voters had their eyes open.

[hester_prynne]

Too true Doreen, I can't agree with you more.
But it seems like all of the tv information sources are passing over these blunders of Bush's. Hypnotizing the masses to continue rooting for Bush!
This scares the hell out of me.
I feel like a prisoner any more, only getting my captor's reports.
This really pisses me off. CNN is a veritable I repeat, republican campaign source.
And another thing. Kerry should a had EVERY woman in this country's vote for the reply he made to Bush in the first debate regarding Bush's comment about "needing to put his daughters on a leash."
I can't believe the president of this country especially would get away with a statement like that my sisters! Yet no one, literally no one has said a word about it!

And last night bullybush acted like a spoiled little kid who expected preferential treatment and butted right into time that wasn't his.
He is still getting preferential treatment! You saw it!
Man!
The double standard value in this country is amazing to me.
Maybe it's time to put our sons "on a leash"!

And by the way,
Kerry replied to GW's good ol boy chavinist statement with a smile, and said "Oh, I learned not to do that a long time ago Mr. President."

VOTE FOR KERRY!

[abcrystcats]

I do not have TV, so I didn't watch the debates. President Bush's personal "style" irritates me so much that I couldn't stand watching him for that long, anyways. Instead, I printed out all three debates on my computer (MSNBC has all transcripts, FYI) and I will be going over them with my pen and highlighter in hand tonight.

The good news is, Prez Bush screwed up really bad. The internet polls I have seen verify that, in the opinion of most Americans, Kerry won this one too ... by a HUGE landslide! My mother and father are now talking about doing "write-in" votes because they think BOTH candidates are bad. Phew! At least that's better than two votes for Bush! Now I may want to work on tilting them over just a LITTLE bit more!

One more comment on Bush's "personal style" -- when Bush speaks, I always get a gut feeling that he is not completely convinced, himself, about what he's saying. It's like, he's got a personal agenda that is being furthered by your believing certain things. The sincerity's totally lacking.

I NEVER felt that way about Reagan, Clinton, Ford, Nixon (believe it or not!) or Bush, Sr. When they appeared before the public, the one the thing I always felt they were projecting was an earnest desire to serve the nation well. I did not LIKE Reagan's personal style, or Ford's, or Bush Sr's. I did not always agree with their politics, either. But I NEVER thought I was looking at a LIAR who just wanted certain things that the office of President would give him. Unfortunately, Prez Bush just comes across as a malevolent, evilminded jerk. Call it a gut reaction.

[Doreen Peri]

*sigh

i didn't think i could ever think any president was as much of a liar as Nixon.... to me, Nixon's FACE spelled LIAR.

but I was wrong. Bush's face says the same thing only this time, it's way worse because it's not just about breaking into the watergate building and the cover-up that followed... it's about the entire world situation

Kerry appeared to be soooo sincere and relaxed and confident.

the only thing that bothers me about him is that he doesn't play UP instead of down his involvement in fighting against the unjust Vietnam war... instead, he plays up his military record... it's all strategy, i suppose

Don't get me wrong, recently I've questioned whether he works for the same big corporations, too, but this time.... i donno... he made me feel very assured that he was being honest

hest - thanks for sharing that story... I missed the "leash" thing... YIKES!

and Cat- i agree.. i'd rather see your parents use a write-in vote than vote for Bush

This is the most important election of our lifetimes, I'm quite certain

(unless we find out that the office of president is only a figurehead office and no matter who gets in there, it will be the same..... that's my paranoia speaking.... crazy times we live in)

[Zlatko Waterman]

Nixon, called by Nicholas Von Hoffman "a smart man who shit in his own nest", told his biggest lie during the David Frost interviews
( worth watching again) when he said, "There was no cover-up."

But, incredibly, Bush doesn't even have to lie or cover up. The mass media supporters of this Reich already have his excuses prepared for him.

I heard several "analysts" on the corporate broadcast radio waves proclaim unhesitatingly that "The President clearly won this one . . ."

Kerry or Bush, we're getting a pro-war president in November.


--Z

[mnaz]

With all due respect to the many broad brush strokes used by many good and intelligent people to paint Bush and Kerry as virtually indistinguishable from each other, I have to object to this way of thinking.

There is a huge personal difference between these two candidates, even if the political machine which spit them out onto the ballot is a joke. First of all, Kerry actually seems to have more than a couple of brain cells to rub together, while Bush is utterly lost at this point (and taking the rest of us down with him). The emperor has no clothes, people.

Ask the families who lost loved ones in Iraq if there's "no difference" between the candidates.

I'm not trying to attack anyone in particular here, but I'm tired of all this talk of Kerry being "pro-war". Kerry had the courage to go fight in Vietnam and then he had the courage to follow his conscience and protest that war; a war which many now admit was wrong, even some of those people who originally pushed it.
Yes, Kerry does indeed seem to have a conscience, which is more than I can say for Bush.

Let's not confuse tough talk against terrorism in this campaign (a prerequisite for entering the fray, due to circumstances) with being "pro-war". John Kerry is not the same as George W. Bush. George W. Bush is a nightmare. His record speaks for itself, yet no one can see it.

[Doreen Peri]

i think everyone who posted to this thread agrees with you, mnaz, that gw is a nightmare and there must be a change!

i was saying i hope the office of presidency itself is not just a figurehead position

paranoia on my part

kerry is articulate, well informed, confident, and clearly has many more than two brain cells to rub together....

he DOES, however, talk of "going out and killing the terrorists" and speaks about the necessity of military strength ... this man is NOT a dove, as he was when he protested the war in vietnam... He has changed and I'm not quite sure of what his plan is to end the iraq situation, but i plan on checking out his website, where he says he has posted many plans he has for both foriegn and domestic affairs

There is no contest... we MUST get bush out of office!!! This current administration scares the shit outa me.

off to wireman's gig... later 8ers

[Zlatko Waterman]

Dear mnaz:


I agree, Bush and the Bushcons are a nightmare.

But Bush and Kerry serve the same corporate warlords.

Kerry has said again and again that he wants to "kill" terrorists. Not put them on trial, not imprison them, but KILL them ( emphasis mine).

Kerry has advocated many more troops for Iraq. Not the end of the Bush-instigated conflict, but more of it.

Unfortunately, joining the military fight in Vietnam was an earlier species of folly, which Kerry first embraced, then reviled. Iraq presents a similar case: Kerry first voted for the resolution to use force, and now scruples over it, saying he "really " meant something else rather than Bushco's "rush to war." Well, maybe. I would like to think so, after Tinker Bell sprinkles me with fairy dust.

Kerry is for the Patriot Act, saying only that it "needs fixing."

Perhaps Kerry will be a little more approachable, lead ( actually lead) an administration bent on a more open and accessible bureaucracy, as opposed to BUSHCO secrecy.


I dearly hope so.

Bush, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and the others are creepy, and it would be good to be shut of them.

I intend to vote for Kerry for the reasons you have hinted at above. But I will not vote for him with any enthusiasm.

mnaz, you and I often agree, and I respect your judgment and taste. In this case, however, I will remain on the beach, while others frisk and frolic in Kerry's waters.


--Z

[abcrystcats]

I think I've made my position very clear to everyone here that I am NOT a pacificist. I never was and I never will be. You are correct, Zlatko, he did use the word "kill" and that struck me last night too. I read it again just to make sure.

On the other hand, I think you need to make the fine, but important distinction between a War President (defined by me as someone who WANTS war and actually seeks it out!) and a Defense President. We've had Presidents who struck back hard when American interests were threatened at home and abroad. The world seems to approve of that, and I do too. On the other hand, you've got these warmongers Cheney and Bush who are just itching for a damn excuse to go out and fight the the entire Muslim World.

I printed out all three debates last night and I've been spending the last few hours going over them with a highlighter and a lice comb . If you read between the lines of the Bush/Cheney rhetoric, what you've got is an unsubtly veiled threat that the war in Iraq will eventually be extended to Iran and God knows where. They are just itching to do it. The only thing that might stop them is our depleted budget and our worn-out, disgusted and used-up military.

It's not only that. Each and every time the candidates were asked questions about domestic issues, Kerry had a plan, and Bush fell down on his ass. The Bush answers to the health care issues just made me sick to my stomach. The guy's clearly an idiot. He thinks more HEALTH CARE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS will help??? And don't even go into the whole pharmaceutical thing. He let down the whole nation on that. Kerry actually has some practical ideas about how to solve some of the health care issues, and for once, I think we MIGHT end up with a leader who has both feet firmly planted on the ground.

Anyway, this is becoming a seriously divisive issue for me with my family. I can't believe that any psychologically normal American of average intelligence would cast a vote for Bush. Even my parents recent switch to neutrality is hard for me to understand. How can you cast your vote in the air when we're in such serious trouble as a nation? The thinly veiled allusions to the Third Reich are beginning to look very relevant. AAAHHHHHH!!!


Thanks for listening.

[mnaz]

Zlatko...

You make salient points, as always. Perhaps you are more correct than I'm willing to admit.

Here's the thing, though. Kerry must "play the hand he was dealt" in this campaign. He is speaking to a country which is half-drunk with vengeance and nationalism. He must show resolve against terrorism. He must deal with Bush's mistakes, if elected. These are the cards he was dealt.

I think the Iraq Resolution vote represents a larger failure of our checks and balances of government. At the very least, Congress should have postponed the vote until after the status of Saddam's weapon's inspection compliance was known. As it was, the vote was rushed early on in the conflict, and a huge majority of Congress voted for it.

But remember the circumstances at the time. Remember what Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski testified. The Bushcons were seriously distorting whatever weak Iraq intelligence they had at the time to paint Iraq as a serious imminent threat. Like you, I wish more members of Congress could have "seen through" this, but in reality, is it fair, in hindsight, to expect that Congress, acting under pressure, should have known that the President was essentially lying about such an important matter as a threat to our security?And how was Congress to know that Bush was also essentially lying when he promised to use force as a last resort?

I am not some radical left-winger, though I'm often labeled as such these days. I don't categorically reject all things right-wing, but I do object to irresponsible, dangerous, bad policy and brazen deception coming from my leaders. Bush has given us an unjustifiable mess that Kerry must clean up, if elected. I have personal reservations about the war in Afghanistan, and the way we wage war, in general, but at least that anti-Taliban action has a leg to stand on, policy-wise. But the Iraq invasion is indefensible in so many ways.

There are two schools of thought here.

First: if we withdraw immediately, the situation stabilizes by virtue of our mere absence.

Second: Not enough troops were sent in the first place to secure the country after a military victory (for both direct security and the training of Iraqis toward that end). Many high-level military experts have testified to this.

It's a hard call to make, I suppose, but Kerry agrees with the second concept. His idea is to send the troops in which should have been sent the first place with the goal of accelerating both the participation of Iraqis in securing their own country and our withdrawal. It's clear that we're not getting the job done as it is, and I also think it would be completely irresponsible of us to bolt out of Iraq and leave it in chaos.

These are tough choices that Kerry, or any other candidate, must deal with now because of Bush's reckless deception and/or horrible judgment. You may or may not agree with the proposed remedies, but it's still Bush's mess.

[mtmynd]

Should Kerry win the election (and by my estimates he should, not to mention my instinct), he will inherit one of the largest messes left by any President in history... a task that may take years to correct, We cannot expect any overnite miracles with Kerry when he takes over, that would be unrealistic. However, I also instinctually feel that Kerry is an honorable man determined to live up to most of his promises. To do anything less would pull the lid over his political coffin. For about 20 years he has served in the Senate which would require him being re-elected by his constituencies three times... and I don't think Massachusetts is dumb enough to reelecte anyone that many times should they be ineffective.

Kerry, I also believe, in order to close the chasm in this country between Repubs and Demos must assure the Repubs some consolations, which any President should do. Bush has failed at least 50% of the country by ignoring anything the Dems have proposed, and indeed, has encouraged that pattern from the "git-go"... which has created this great split in the country.

But of course, I could be full of shit about Kerry, having been deluded by his rhetoric, but having that attitude would not give me any hope for our country. When Kerry talks about new technologies, the environment, the health issues, etc, etc, he perhaps is putting a bit too much on his plate, but what he has convinced me of is Hope, and that is a far cry from the politics of Fear that Dubya has ingrained into my psyche for over three and a half years.

When I vote my vote will be for Hope... that's the best I can offer this country.