portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

government

Some Hits in Debate, but a Big MISS

I can't believe how Kerry missed a sterling change to blow George W. Bush out of the water in his rebuttal to the last question asked.
Bush gave Kerry an opening wide enough to drive a platoon of Humvees through and he didn't take it.

When the last Missouri guest asked Bush if he would name three instances in which he felt he made a mistake in judgment and why, his response made it perfectly clear that he regretted nothing . . . apologized for nothing . . . would have done nothing differently except for "several appointments" of people whose names he would not divulge. What that translated to was: "I do not belive I've made any mistakes and the only mistakes I made was in giving responsibility to people who failed me." Once again, he showed an arrogant, oblivious nature and when asked to define failure, diverted it to unnamed appointees who he could blame in anonymity.

I couldn't wait for Kerry to rise and say something like, "What you heard this President say . . . or rather NOT say . . . is that he has nothing to apologize for and that he believes that in his entire term in office he has done nothing he regrets. How many of us can say that? How many of us would agree with him?" He could have RUN with that one and it would have made a smashing ending. Yet he did not. Why?

What a terrible missed opportunity.

it's true 08.Oct.2004 20:05

LMS

i agree that he had a very clear opportunity which he did not take. i couldn't believe how BLATENTLY george bush sidestepped that question (and it was an important one), and kerry blew off his chance to kick that neanderthal in the ass. but ultimately, i thought that kerry worked the debate very well. he was so composed, and all of bush's little tantrums just showed what an incompetent fool he is. after this, i am optimistic about the outcome of the elections.

Pushy Self-Entitled Bully 08.Oct.2004 22:33

Cheney Watch

Yes, Bush came off as an arrogant bully, particularly when he began jumping to his feet and inching up on Kerry while the Senator was still in the process of making his statements. The point where Bush yelled at the moderator and demanded, like some weak, petulant king, that he be allowed to respond, was very telling.

And, as with the last debate, Bush continued to refer to Kerry as "my opponent" while Kerry referred to Bush as "Mr. President". Bush could easily have returned the civility and addressed Kerry as "Senator Kerry" but he did not.

Did you catch the couple of times Bush cocked his head and winked at the crowd as he turned to strut back to his seat?

I hope many people picked up on his "non-answer" to the last question. I could tell by the expression on the face of the woman who asked it that she was not satisfied with his response. At the very least, he could have tried to deflect the question with a joke by saying, "Well, I shouldn't have eaten that pretzel" or "Guess I've fallen of my bike a couple of times" but he didn't even have the wit to do that.

Watch Out For Those Killer Drugs From Canada! + Poll Results 08.Oct.2004 22:58

Buzzflash & Political Strategy.org

BuzzFlash Second Debate Analysis: Watch Out for Those Killer Drugs from Canada, Bush Warns

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

October 8, 2004, 11:30 EST

Well, the Bush handlers must have given the Texas Chihuahua a shot of something in his butt, because the guy couldn't sit down during the St. Louis debate. Clearly Charlie Gibson, the ABC moderator of the evening, left his leash at home, because he didn't stop Bush from jumping up and offering a rebuttal to Kerry whenever the Midland Cheerleader Chickenhawk felt like it.

Bush improved dramatically in theatrics over the first debate. The guy was so pumped up, he looked like a caveman on speed. The media will probably give him the debate because he was actually coherent in his lying. Given that the facts don't matter to the press in a debate, they will just say George was hot to trot.

As for the killer drugs from Canada, Bush claimed he wasn't stopping their import, he just wanted to ensure they were safe. Given that they are mostly American drugs exported to Canada and returned to the U.S. at lower prices, it's your usual Bush lie. In fact, Kerry pointed out that Bush promised he would look into lifting the ban on importation of Canadian drugs four years ago in a debate with Al Gore.

Kerry's game plan was to stay on message, continue to attack Bush for making the wrong decision to invade Iraq, outline clear domestic plans, and evidence ongoing empathy for the middle class. In this debate, which was divided with the half time on foreign policy and half the time on domestic affairs, Kerry was definitely tilting a bit more populist in repeatedly opposing a tax give away to the wealthy.

It was clear that Kerry also came across as more empathetic and understanding of the audience questioners than his media stereotype has portrayed. (This was a "town hall" audience setting debate.)

You got the feeling that Kerry was following the old public relations technique of going in with the message points you want to get across and sticking to them no matter what. He was a bit more cautious than in the first debate, clearly trying to avoid alienating swing voters on the abortion issue, for instance. But his style was competent, strong, clear and firm. He was in command and unflappable. Bush was so hot and lathered, you wanted to throw a bucket of water on him.

Amidst Bush's wild stalking around the center carpet, Kerry kept a cool head and stuck to his game plan. He has extremely limited vehicles to reach the entire nation -- and repetition works when the clock is ticking down.

Bush was clearly told to be as aggressive as possible by his handlers. It fits in with BuzzFlash's elect a "Son of a Bitch" in a time of terrorist threat theory. It's something we realized recently.

Maybe the explanation as to why half the country is still in Bush's camp has to do with the fact that they think a congenital liar and Son of a Bitch is exactly who you need to deal with crazed terrorists. For voters who fit this description, the more Bush lies and cares less about who is getting killed -- our soldiers or Iraqis -- the better he is to deal with the S.O.B.s who are out to do in America. Because, you know he will stop at nothing, even if he is wrong. Maybe some people think this keeps the elusive terrorists -- whoever they might be -- on their toes.

As with Cheney, Bush's biggest vulnerability is that just about every word out of his mouth is a lie. His interpretation of the CIA report just out that concluded there were no WMDs in Iraq was almost comical, if thousands of people hadn't died as a result of Bush's catastrophic decision to invade Iraq.

Bush kept bringing up WMDs. Kerry pointed out that Bush let Iran and North Korea develop nuclear potential while he was obsessed with Iraq. And then there's that little matter Kerry didn't bring up of Mr. Khan from Pakistan who sold nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea, while Pakistan was our ally in chasing Al Qaeda. What did Bush do about Mr. Khan? He allowed Pakistan to let him go free AND to keep his profits from selling the nuclear secrets to Iran and North Korea.

In case you wanted to know more about Bush's duplicity about Khan, here is an excerpt from the Washington Post this week:

Pardon Me?

Spin of the Week award: The winner, despite intense competition, is national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Rice, chatting Sunday with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, was asked about Bush's claim that Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who sold nuclear secrets to North Korea, Iran, and Libya, had been "brought to justice."

"To 'justice'?" Blitzer asked, saying that seemed to be very "sloppy wording," since Khan had been "pardoned by President [ Pervez] Musharraf."

Khan, who has done more damage to the security of the United States than anyone since Benedict Arnold, "himself lives in a villa," Blitzer noted -- actually five of them. "And the [International Atomic Energy Agency] would like to question him, and the Pakistani government doesn't even allow that to happen."

"A.Q. Khan, in a sense, has been brought to justice," Rice said with a straight face, "because he is out of the business that he loved most. . . . And if you don't think that his national humiliation is justice for what he did, I think it is. He's nationally humiliated."

Well, so is Ken Lay. So is Martha Stewart, and she's going to the slammer. But we hanged Arnold's co-conspirator. And if we could have found Arnold. . . .

And remember, the Bush administration allowed Khan to keep the money he "earned" from peddling nuclear secrets.

Of course, Bush's White House also exposed Valerie Plame, a CIA analyst who specialized in tracking the illicit trade of WMDs, thus sacrificing the security of America in order to send a message to dissenters such as her husband Joe Wilson. And Bush has never bothered to ask who did it. Maybe, because he can't implicate HIMSELF or Karl Rove.

Oh well, there we go again, digressing, but we couldn't resist, even if none of the Khan affair came up in this debate (although Bush took credit for allegedly bringing Khan to justice -- have you stopped laughing -- in the first debate.)

Suffice it to say, in debate two, Bush will be credited with making a comeback. He met his threshold of lying in a way that was not incoherent. And the "S.O.B." voters will admire that he pounced about the stage unleashed, spouting out all sorts of nonsense that sounded believable, but wasn't.

At the end of the debate, a woman asked Bush if he could name three mistakes he had made in decisions during his presidency.

He couldn't.

As for Supreme Court nominees, he wouldn't name potential candidates because he said he wanted them to vote for him -- and then we think he snorted or something akin to that. It was real sweet and touching.

As for John Kerry, he won, but it wasn't as clear a victory as in the first debate, because Bush controlled his grimaces, although he always seemed to have the glimmer of a smirk as he listened to Kerry speak.

Kerry had meaningful and direct answers.

That might not account for a lot nowadays, but it probably connected well with the swing voters, who he was clearly trying to woo.

We'll give it three debates to zero for the Kerry/Edwards team, because Kerry was looking to get his message out to a targeted group of voters -- and Bush was just trying to look like the 800-pound guerrilla.

 http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/10/edi04074.html

PLUS . . .

DEBATE POLLS - FOLKS WEIGH IN ON THE SECOND DEBATE:
 http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000516.php

Go to this site to find many links to major interactive polls - Cast your vote and be counted!

As of 11:00 pm Friday:

* MSNBC
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 69%
Bush: 31%

* CNN (Scroll Down to 'Quick Vote')
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 78%
Bush: 20%

* CNN America Votes (This is different from the on above. Vote in both!)
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 87%
Bush: 12%

* CBS News
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 88%
Bush: 11%

* Fox News (Scroll Down)
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 51%
Bush: 48%

* Boston Globe
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 87%
Bush: 10%

* AOL
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 51%
Bush: 49%

* Yahoo News
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 64%
Bush: 33%

* Campaigns and Elections
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 64%
Bush: 35%

* MS. Magazine
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 74%
Bush: 26%


Online Polls in Swing States (Hit em Hard!)

* Tampa Bay Online
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 89%
Bush: 10%

* Denver Post
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 23%
Bush: 68%

* Rocky Mountain News
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 95%
Bush: 5%

* KOLO TV Reno, NV (Scroll Down)
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 91%
Bush: 9%

* Asheville Citizen-Times, NC (Scroll Down - This link has been fixed)
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 87%
Bush: 13%

* Denver Channel, CO (This is actually a national poll that is placed on local stations' websites in many swing states...among others. Interestingly, if you go to each of the local websites, Iowa, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Birmingham, Cincinnati, Dallas-Fort Worth, New Orleans, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Orlando, Harrisburg, Dayton, Charlotte and Wheeling. But, of course I don't recommend such action because that would be playing on the same field as the Republicans.)
Ongoing Poll Results
Kerry: 77%
Bush: 22%

Dred Scott??? 08.Oct.2004 23:12

Litoralis

So, was Bush trying to say that he would appoint supreme court justices that are anti-slavery
or pro-slavery??? I personally hope we never find out which one it will be.


In 1846, Dred Scott and his wife Harriet filed suit for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court. This suit began an eleven-year legal fight that ended in the U.S. Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision declaring that Scott remain a slave. This decision contributed to rising tensions between the free and slave states just before the American Civil War.

The records displayed in this exhibit document the Scotts' early struggle to gain their freedom through litigation and are the only extant records of this significant case as it was heard in the St. Louis Circuit Court. The original Dred Scott case file is located in the Office of the St. Louis Circuit Clerk.

the polls show that Bush lost by a 08.Oct.2004 23:31

landslide

and thats great...except, this will certainly assure that some sort of Rove/evil
OCTOBER SURPRISE is yet to come our way...may God protect us all...Bush losing the
debate has put the evil rats to running to 'n' foe in mad scramble to win at all
costs! While we rejoice with glee at Bush's many blunders--let us remind ourselves
what is in store for us in the days ahead and get ready for the weeping!!!!

Why... 09.Oct.2004 05:52

susanscully

Why aren't these debates considered major news on the front page of Indy?

More on the debate 09.Oct.2004 07:04

Al

I couldn't help laughing as I watched Bush strut around with his non-sensical answers and arrogance. At one point he was asked about the USA Patriot Act, and whether he thought it was destroying our civil liberties. As Bush ranted and raved about what a great tool the act is in defeating terror, the camera flashed on the man who asked the question. He didn't seem very impressed with what he was hearing and in my opinion, had an expression of disbelief on his face.

While I'm glad to see the polls showing Bush as the big-time loser, I have to agree with landslide that this could spell a serious danger. These guys will stop at nothing to remain in power. If Kerry really starts coming out ahead and looks as though he could win the election, there's no telling what could happen. One mistake I think that Kerry and liberals are making in general is to hit Bush on not having Osama bin Laden. Bush never responds to that charge but seems to remain calm. It could be that he already has Osama and is saving him for the October surprise. An announcement that he's been captured would all but insure that Bush will get his second term and will neutralize many of the liberal arguments about Bush being distracted by Iraq.

Then of course, if Bush doesn't have Osama it could be even worse. Just use your imaginations on that one. Bye the way, John Howard apparently won in Australia. Not a good omen.

"major news" 09.Oct.2004 07:05

Vystrix Nexoth

because the debates are the *only* news everywhere else. you never hear about the various Cobb-Badnarik debates (which are by far more open and informative), or if you do, it's just a dismissive mention.

to indy, this is just another presidential debate. it just happens to be the one with the duopoly's candidates in it, and is duopoly- and corporate- sponsored and gets all the media attention, when in fact it's not the most informative or useful of the debates; it's more entertainment than information.

the bigist mistake I saw 09.Oct.2004 07:12

marmot

The bigist mistake I saw was that when he talked of not conceeding the governance of the us to outside fources or institutions he, and spoke of outsourcing He didn't fucking say

"I WILL NOT CONCEED THE GOVERNANCE OF THE US ECONOMY, AND AMERICAN JOBS TO THE WTO!"

If you think about how PISSED most americans are at outsourcing, that would have givin him a standing ovation.

word

They're not leaving 09.Oct.2004 08:30

gerry

There's no way in the world they're leaving office. I agree that the closer the polling data is, the more dangerous they become. A first line of defense is the touchscreen voting machines that leave no paper trails and were recently used with devastating effects in Georgia and elsewhere. Then comes the various "October surprises," along with manufactured terrorist events leading to martial law and god knows what else. But don't forget one other thing: in the very unlikely case that the vote data isn't manipulated and Kerry actually wins, Bush does not leave office until January. That's plenty of time to stage a terrorist event and impose martial law on the country. Then, the only way Kerry takes office is through a military coup of some kind. I've heard stories that it's in the works and the military is the only thing standing between you and another four years of these madmen.

How are those for bleak prospects?

regarding this Presidential Debate, my comments are I was 09.Oct.2004 09:07

SHOCKED

as clearly George W. Bush is criminally insane and all the media spin-bullshit can't hide it

I Want My Hydrogen-Powered Car! 09.Oct.2004 09:27

Mr. Plasmosis

Read several stories with analyses of the debate from throughout the country and the world and everyone seems to be giving Bush a pass on the last question re. whether he could name three things that were mistakes . . . and he couldn't. They don't even mention it.

On the bright side, a good many of them seem to have picked up on his hyperactive arrogance and bad manners (what's new?).

And - OMG - the reemergence of the HYDROGEN POWERED AUTOMOBILE! I was surprised he didn't throw in the Mars flights for good measure.

farcical, but relevent 09.Oct.2004 09:36

glassguy

I watched most of the debate, looking for humor-mill fodder. Though this farce is impossible (for me) to take seriously overall, I was truly shocked to see kerry land a few good jabs.
I thought kerry's remark that the only people in attendence who'd see their taxes go up under his plan would be himself, mr. pretzel, and the moderator really hit home for a lot of viewers, at least the ones who take the process seriously.
I suspect that mr. pretzel will be re-defeated, but the margin will not overcome the widespread fraud planned, and the junta will not leave office.
If/when this plays out, I hope there will be a general strike and widespread protest.

rapist 09.Oct.2004 10:07

mother earth

Has anyone out there ever had access to enough cocaine hydrochloride to enable self congratulation for the rape of their own mother? GOOD STEWARD!

When asked by a woman about his "environmental" record, Mr Bush committed the act that will serve as focal point for all of his failures from this day onward. WE will never forget those words, spoken in a deranged fit of denial.

He may wish someday at his trial that he had lied about a blowjob instead.

Mr Bush raped every woman on this planet with his response to that question.

Most Kindergarteners Have Better Social Skills 09.Oct.2004 10:29

Harmony

When a kindergartener rudely pushes his way to the front of a line with no consideration for others, interrupts inappropriately, doesn't share, doesn't apologize, and lies about what he has done he is admonished and sent to go sit in a corner to think about his inappropriate behavior.

When George Bush does these things in a debate, his supporters call him "aggressive", "steadfast", "back on track", and a "go-getter".

Go figure.

Bush doesn't do well with authority figure in room 09.Oct.2004 19:18

JR

That's the way I view the debates. So far Bush is 0 for 2, and the next one will probably be worse. When the lady asked him the "mistakes" question, a question which threw him into a tailspin at a press conference once, he said something like "What you're asking basically is do I think the Iraq war was a mistake? No," so I think it doesn't take a lot of analysis to detect the real answer there.

The most telling part for me was the assault on Charlie Gibson. But whatever Bush does, I get the feeling that all of it is planned. They say, "OK Bush, we want you to act tough at minute 47 of the debate," and he says "Bush act tough 47 minute" and so on. Also, there was one split screen moment where Bush was intently searching for where a question was coming from, and it occured to me that he might have been looking for his sanity.