portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro


Kerry Kicks Bush In Debate #3

I thought that Karl Rove would have made his adjustments by now, but tonight Bush got his butt kicked even worse than in debate #1. Like his Dad, W has gone globetrotting in tanks and destroyers, and his domestic agenda is pathetic.
George W. Bush put in another lame performance on national TV. It's no wonder that his dad once supported not having presidential debates, because the apple never falls far from the tree, as Tony Blair praised W. Ear pieces and dirty politics can disguise stupidity and deception in a candidate, but on live TV, may the better man win.

It makes it even more difficult to believe how Al Gore could have blown it so bad in 2000, but at least the progessive element of the Democratic Party, and even the Greens and (old school) Libertarians, have won out in influence on the Democrats instead of the soft Dick Gephart approach.

Keep on kicking Bush! Just three weeks to go!
having been a lifelong 14.Oct.2004 00:16


I'm outraged at how damned stupid Bush is live. Yes, John Kerry was the better man and he
gets my vote, as I don't want some stupid man who is too damned lazy to learn public-speaking
skills to be my president. Bush has had 4 years to hone his skills and what has he done? He
has been a total disappointment to me and me other Republicans. It's time for a change and I
have no qualms in voting to bring one about. We, as a nation, need one badly...vote Kerry in
and vote Bush OUT.

This was Bush's best showing 14.Oct.2004 00:46

teddy ruxpin (the lousy typist)

This time I did something different: I listened on the radio rather than watching it on TV. The differences were shocking; all Bush's "deer in the headlights" moments came off smoother on the radio, his answers sounded less whiny and even the data he cited seemed, well, like data.

It was really surreal, I kept asking myself if there was some huge difference, if he finally enrolled in debate class or something. Then it hit me: It sounded better on radio because he was being presented with his "brain" via radio. Things that sound good in his ear sounded good in mine, but if you watch him you see all that stuff that does not make it into his earpiece, such as the shrugs and funny facial expressions.

He was of course nowhere near impressive enough to get me to vote for him (and I am a registered republican, and by most standards a conservative). The guy was an idiot when I had to deal with him as governor (I lived in a neighboring state) and he is an idiot now. I wanted John McCain, not Furious George!

Debate #3 14.Oct.2004 08:57

Sean Holland spindrift@juno.com

Again, the choice is clear. Never before has the election been of such imperative concern for America, nor the differences been so pronounced. The consequences of four more years of this current administration do not bode well for either our country, the environment, or the free world. The ever increasing number of conservative Republicans now endorsing or urging a vote for Kerry is evidence of the intense dissatisfaction that Bush, Cheney and their cohorts have engendered among the usually faithful Right. This election requires all concerned Americans to vote, and to many of us the Vote for Kerry is the only logical choice.

Call me crazy... 14.Oct.2004 15:28


...I think that reelection of Bush will more contribute to the change in this country then election of halfassed Kerry.
I think that four more years of oppression can produce the critical mass of people whose eyes open to the corporate takeover
Think about what reelection would do. Every normal person would be PISSED beyond control, thinking that the election was rigged (when in reality that does not have to happen at all:
the brainwashed rednecks will simply do what they are programmed to do)Believe me: when people start to loose feith in this entire system anything could happen. It might get a bit dangerous but that is how things change.

COme on! How much do you really expect from that Kerry character? Did you hear him talk about the healthcare last night? I checked his website after last night's debate. All he is talking about is some quick surface fix of a system that is horribly wrong at its core. "Up to 1,000$ less for healthcare for every familiy" hahahaha Is that a joke or something? Cause it is a really good one.
1000$ won't change shit! US is the only non-Third-World country that does not provide universal healthcare for (all of) its citizens. Yet, US government (read: taxpayers) pay more for healthcare then any other country in the world (80% more then Canadians) As if things aren't bad enough, World Health Organization has placed quality of Healthcare in US as 37th in the world last year! I am not making this up, you can check that data on their website.
Or you can quote Mr. President's words from last night's debate: "Healthcare in US is the envy of the world". That one's definitely for Orvell.

How about Kerry's supposed increase of the minimum wage? Give me a break! How much does he plan to increase it? A dollar? Two? Cause he needs to increase it by 100% in order that a family with two workers can live above the poverty level. (Check  http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf) Otherwise, the freaking minimum wage doesn't mean shit!

Deadly Bush Lie. 14.Oct.2004 16:22


Bush Tells An Ourageous And Easily Provable Lie About The Critical Issue Of Terror And Homeland Security During The Third Debate.

Here are the quotes from the debate:

KERRY: When the president had the opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, he took his focus off of them, outsourced the job to Afghan warlords, and Osama bin Laden escaped.

Six months after he said Osama bin Laden must be caught dead or alive, this president was asked, "Where is Osama bin Laden?" He said, "I don't know. I don't really think about him very much. I'm not that concerned."

We need a president who stays deadly focused on the real war on terror.

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President?

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Actually George Bush is telling an easily provable lie here. It is also a deadly lie which speaks directly to this administration's failure to continue the real war on terror and thus places the security of the United States in grave danger. Remember, Osama bin Laden was the actual mastermind and power behind the deadly attack on the United States on 9/11.

Here is the proof from one of George Bush's rare White House press conferences (talking to Kelly Wallace of CNN in March 2003) that he is lying about this extremely critical security issue:

BUSH: So I don't know where he (Osama bin Laden) is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. ...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

This dangerous lie is extremely easy to verify. Clearly Bush slipped up in that White House press conference and told the truth. There are only two possible conclusions which a reasonable mind can reach regarding this matter: either the Bush administration has made a deadly and dangerous pact with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or others to leave Osama bin Laden alone; or the Bush administration is guilty of gross dereliction of duty at an unimaginable scale.

Listen carefully again to what Bush said in that White House press conference:

"You know I just don't spend that much time on him..." and, "...I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him (Osama bin Laden)."

George W. Bush is "not concerned" about the man who vaporized thousands of Americans in New York?! George Bush doesn't spend that much time on the man who attacked the Pentagon?! That is an outrage! Americans need to demand an explanation for George Bush's lack of concern about the mass murderer Osama bin Laden and the scandalous lie in the third debate to cover it up.

Sincerely Yours,

Please feel free to copy or e-mail the critical issue above.

i don't think that you're crazy 14.Oct.2004 17:10

not crazy

look how many people have got fired up with the bush politics, but still, not enough. if bush has four more years, maybe a real revolt will start, which is what we need.

isn't this all a moot point anyway considering bush never won the first time. what's to keep him out of the whitehouse this time around?