posted on October 8, 2004 10:14:34 PM new
Bear is always wrong Crow. He's trying to pretend he's more moral than the rest of us even though he's probably sitting at the computer in a trench coat with no clothes on underneath.
posted on October 8, 2004 10:28:09 PM new
I liked the very last question for Bush. It was from a woman who asked Bush to recount 3 of his mistakes in his term. He failed to do this. He said that he appointed a few people that he wouldn't wan't to embarrass. He instead repeated the right war at the right time blather, and the economy is doing great.
That is 2 issues and not 3, and neither of them were answers to the question asked. He failed to answer the question and AVOIDED it. He only talked about the things that he thought would suffice for a replacement for a true answer. He is a side stepper on issues.
Bigots are miserable people. Prevent Bigotry through Education.
posted on October 8, 2004 10:30:40 PM new
Actually, Yeager, I am not surprised that Bush didn't answer that last question. He never admits to be wrong or making a mistake. And since he is entirely unused to getting unscreened, critical questions, you could also see his discomfort with severalof the question writ large on his face...
____________________
"Bad temper is its own scourge. Few things are more bitter than to feel bitter. A man's venom poisons himself more than his victim." --Charles Buxton
posted on October 8, 2004 10:45:46 PM new
Bush got the al Qaeda facts wrong twice during the first debate and then again this evening.
Claim: Bush said that 75 percent of known al Qaeda members have been brought to justice.
CNN Fact Check: Bush incorrectly suggests that under his watch 75 percent of al Qaeda's membership has been brought to justice. CIA officials have estimated that 75 percent of the two-dozen or so known al Qaeda leaders, as of September 11, 2001, have been killed or captured.
The non-partisan International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives, but there is no official data on the size of al Qaeda's total membership, in part because it is difficult to track the number of new recruits since the Iraq War.
posted on October 9, 2004 04:08:51 AM new
I gave Kerry points for being honest about his mistake in phrasing the voting for before I voted against thing... Average Americans dont understand all that political manuneuvering that goes on in DC and he needs to set it straight in the simplist way possible. I also think he has relaxed the MA Senator highbrow diatribe that he normally speaks with - which it's about time.
He didnt say he was a 'devout' catholic, just that he was raised catholic, and understands what that means. I gave him high points for that too; seperating the law from his personal feelings. I also very much liked his answer on appointing judges. But I do question one thing he said about the draft: did he say he would increase the military by 40,000? if so, how will he do that, if as he claims the reserve is already overtaxed, etc? If not by a draft -what exactly are his plans to bolster recruitment?? How does he propose to add' 40,000 troops?
I thought Bush handled himself extremely well. He was well briefed on every issue, and his side's outlook on them. The commentary before the debate was Bush is a well-liked guy because he is at ease and does joke around a bit... (Clnton had it too - its called charm.) So its not that people who aren't too bright relate to him; it's that Americans overwhelmingly respond to an affableness in their leaders along with other qualities. At least the commentators I heard, figured that one out.
And Bush did answer the question as to what mistakes he made. He said in effect, he regrets some of the appointee's he's made, but he wasnt going to name names. That was a preloaded question to ask a incumbent president seeking re-election, imo. (Why didnt they ask the same of Kerry - what mistakes he's made in his 30yr political career?)
imo, its going to be a VERY tight race. All the networks better be cautious in reporting who is the declared winner.
President Bush smirked and winked and chuckled to himself. He jumped from his stool, chopped at the air and interrupted the debate moderator. As he fought to keep his emotions in check during a combative debate with Sen. John Kerry, the president jokingly said, "That answer almost made me want to scowl."
Several answers brought Bush's emotions to the surface, for better or worse, as he sought to curb Kerry's momentum.
The question that hung over the second of their three debates was whether Bush's aggressive, hyper style was an effective tool or a damaging habit - an extension of his disastrous first debate performance. Reviews were mixed.
Bush "seemed wound a bit too tight. He was a little like Nixon - sort of jumping out of his suit," said David Niven, political science professor at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. "He looked bad on the TV close-ups."
posted on October 9, 2004 07:21:44 AM newActually, it's rather frightening...
AH yes, about as frightening as when Gore with His raised shoulders and bull flaring nostrils approached Bush at the podium in 2000???
C'mon Helen, thats a quack spin if ever I read one. "frightening"??? I dont think so. Yes, he was defensive and displayed some annoyance and emotion at Kerry. But actually, if Kerry 'could' display some real emotion it might lend to that credibility problem he has in getting people to believe that he really believes what he's talking about. Instead of that dead-pan delivery he most often uses. You want this job? Get charged, dude! Show me you will get charged on my and my fellow Americans behalf.
posted on October 9, 2004 07:46:11 AM new
I think emotional control and the ability to think carefully and consider good advice rather than take the first suggestion offered is very important in a leader. I was just watching a documentary which featured John F Kennedy and how he reacted when he was faced with the Cuban missile crisis. Can you imagine what might happen under the direction of George W. Bush in a similar situation? He would look to Carl Rove and Cheney and run with the first war mongering advice that he heard. We would be involved in a nuclear war.
posted on October 9, 2004 08:10:58 AM new
I watched another interesting movie last nite called THE WILD THINGS-matt dillon,carrie snodgrass,theresa russell and a few more names i cant recall.
It is about a school guidance counseller and 2 girls get together to scam the girl's mother out of 8.7 million dollars.
watch these movies instead of watching irrelevant debates,you may just learn something
-sig file -------Life is one big happy 'All You Can Eat' buffet .
posted on October 9, 2004 08:28:04 AM new
Ya, movies tell you so much about "real life".(?)
If Kerry started showing the "emotion" of bush the neocons would start screaming "he's too emotional, he's out of control, he's another Howard Dean".
The neocons think if a Republican shows emotion he's "human" and if a Democrat does he's "crazy".
Ha! Zell Miller is just so "human".
So, the lesson is ignore the ignorant neocons.
I want an unemotional leader, one who uses his brains, stays calm, thinks things through, is able to change his mind when circumstances change, appears in control and sensible especially when dealing with other countries.
Speaking of movies as they may relate to today's administration: Escape from LA comes to mind. Too scarey and too much like where we are headed (sans the earthquake that sends LA out into the ocean, LOL!). A president appointed for life. . . speaking against the US strips you of your citizenship. . .loss of Constitutional rights. . .a country run by the religious right. . .
Cheryl
. . .if you still try to defend the infamies and horrors perpetrated by that Antichrist- I really believe he is Antichrist- I will have nothing more to do with you and you are no longer my friend.. . - War and Peace, Tolstoy
posted on October 9, 2004 10:43:07 AM new
neroter - I think you're 'right on' on the subject of the differences between their personalities.
On how will kerry get more troops? Just as President Bush is doing right now. Offering better benefits, living conditions, higher salaries, etc. to entice more to join. But again as in most things kerry is proposing....President Bush is ALREADY doing.
That's what I find so amusing. I think the left isn't aware of just how many things kerry promises to do that the President already has in play because they only read about the negative things the media dishes out to them...they rarely mention the things that have been put into play or have already been suggested in Congress.
And your other statements were very fair. That's one of the things I most enjoy about your posts. You're more 'detached' from the 'hard line' that many of us hold here.
---------------
I also read this about how kerry's always putting this President down about his position in regards to the Koyoto treaty and his backing away from it.
--
October 08, 2004
Kerry on Kyoto
It took me a while to find it but here's the record in the U.S. Senate that shows Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., voted yes on Senate Resolution 98 in 1997.
That resolution expresses "the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change." The resolution passed 95-0.
According to Hagel, who seems to be Kerry's favorite Republican in Congress after Sen. John McCain, "S.Res.98 directed the President not to sign any treaty'...unless the protocol or agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period.'
The message was simple. Yet as we know, the Kyoto Protocol does not include a single developing nation. These are the very nations, such and China and India, that will soon lead the world in manmade greenhouse emissions. Any treaty that exempts them from participation is folly."
----------
neroter Also, one difference in the way they'd recruit military personnel is kerry say's he'll offer a free college education for two years of either service in our Armed Forces OR public service. But as we all know that would be a HUGE expense on our budget again. And with kerry now saying he's had to trim back on some of his previous promises....which, of course, he blames on President Bush's deficit [rather than his OWN very robust 'promise everybody everything - and it can't be done], we really don't know WHICH promised programs he plans not to fund. It might be this one.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 9, 2004 11:11 AM ]
posted on October 9, 2004 04:56:59 PM new
Hi Linda, yeah, I do watch at it somewhat detached. But really, I dont know if that is a good thing. I'd much rather have a strong belief in one of the candidates but cant seem to summon that up for any of them anymore. (Especially after hearing about that whole skull and bones thing.)
Kerry, yeah, lots of proposals and promises. Gonna cost the taxpayers somewhere! Tendency to forget that when it all sounds good....(I had a dream about him...really weird.....haha! probably because my sister mentioned my uncle john and if i'd heard from them during the hurricane, but in the dream it was john kerry.....lol, like i said really weird! I woke up like wtf is john kerry doing in one of my dreams??!)
Hey, looks like the Bush bashers are busy logging on the board tonight!! HOWuLLLLLLL! Wonder why? Directly after the debate...feeling insecure or something?
Just ignore them LOL all you want. Laughing is good. (besides you must have read coulters book on how to irritate a dem! )
Been a long day for me. bbl or tomorrow or sometime.....
posted on October 9, 2004 05:44:40 PM new
nerotic says,
"Hey, looks like the Bush bashers are busy logging on the board tonight!! HOWuLLLLLLL! Wonder why? Directly after the debate...feeling insecure or something?"
Gee, I had the same question about the neocons in here.....if they're so confident that bush is going to win.....why are they working so hard to show us what a great guy he is?
posted on October 9, 2004 06:23:59 PM new
It's in reference to accountants who used to(about 75 years ago) wear eyeshades. He's WAAY behind times in his attempt to be cute.
Last night was one of those nights when you truly wonder if the television pundits were watching the same debate that you were. Forty-five minutes into it-- or 36 minutes, to be precise-- came the moment when Bush lost control, angrily shouting down moderator Charlie Gibson, leaping from his stool to deliver a pissed-off jeremiad about the Iraq war and the allies that Bush had brought to his side. Gibson himself was stunned into submission; the audience members cast nervous looks at each other; and on the other end of the television camera, in living rooms across the country, Americans exchanged glances across the couch and asked a simple question-- Is this guy stable?
Moments later, the top blogs began screaming "President Kerry-- discuss." It seemed we had witnessed one of those rare moments in politics when the character and mental stability of a candidate is brought into full question. George Bush, in leaping to his feat and bulldozing past the moderator, ignoring the debate rules and any normal sense of decorum, had just given us his Howard Dean moment.
The outburst didn't exist in isolation; like a good player on the stage, his behavior had built toward this crescendo. Bush appeared angry from the very first question, his masticating jaw emblematic of a barely-successful effort to maintain composure. Michael Tomasky describes it thus:
It was the manner: the schoolyard swagger, the left arm cocked like an itchy gunslinger's, the arrogant sneer, the roosterish strutting -- and the voice. God, that voice. You don't quite call that screaming. It wasn't exactly caterwauling. Maybe yowling. Whatever it was, he sounded like a tedious and noisome braggart in the parking lot after a football game.
There was desperation in that voice, too; the sound of a man getting truly hot beneath his collar. It was one thing for the president to be passionate; another thing altogether for the president to be cranky, defensive, bullyish, as he was last night.
posted on October 10, 2004 08:25:48 AM new
I don't know if he is a loose cannon or not Helen...he may very well be...
I think he was instructed to come out swinging in this debate..to show more strength and be more aggressive.
In the first debate, he took all the punches, and their strategy was to have him appear more confident...and to go on the attack.
I don't think this served him well however...
we were left with the image and impression of an arrogant desperate hot head who acts before he thinks..
I wonder what persona he will adopt for the final debate? Perhaps the kinder..gentler good ole boy one? Maggie
posted on October 10, 2004 08:29:13 AM newShort Takes on the Debate
Nina Burleigh:
The President's bullying body language and pugnacious schoolyard lingo – "You kin run, but you cain't hide" – didn't win the debate for him, but certainly made for a flashier performance than last week's. Leaping off his stool and shouting, interrupting the moderator, Charles Gibson, glaring at John Kerry, actually squaring off at him like a boxer, he looked like he might swing at the challenger.
Steve Cobble:
We could make fun of George W's firm grasp of the "internets," his stated opposition to the Dred Scott case of 1857, his insult to Canada, his near-shouting at times, and his inability to sit on his stool.
(He was so hopped up, I thought John Kerry should have said, "George, you're really wired tonight. Or was that last week?" Ba-da-boom!)
Rachel Neumann and Tai Moses:
When asked why he'd blocked the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada, this crowd was visibly annoyed by Bush's answer that he'd wanted to make sure they "were safe."
"F*&#* you!" snapped a woman of a certain age seated at the bar, inviting an equally spirited "F*&#* off!" from an elderly gentleman in a tucked-in paisley shirt.
The ice was broken and the truth was out: kitchen table issues are what gets these folks' blood boiling. John Kerry warmed up too. And the President? After nearly body-slamming moderator Charlie Gibson (apparently, a potential terrorist), Bush screamed, whined, and pouted in a way reminiscent of one listener's one-and-a-half-year-old — when she was younger.
posted on October 10, 2004 09:18:10 AM new
Good article by Mathew Gross and it does make me wonder how stable Bush actually is. My worry if he gets in again is that it may go to his head even more and he will do something more rash than he has already done, thinking that everyone approves of him.
The Bush supporters checking in here see a strength in his performance though and seem to like the image that others of us see as a "loose cannon" one. They viewed him as "relaxed and calm" and "at ease".
Maggie, I think for the third round Bush will have to be more aware and stable. First round he looked stunned and possibly too medicated, the 2nd round I think he was on the "aggressive meds" (or perhaps right off them) and now they have to find that middle ground....... "alert and in control" mix.
It must be a tough job for his advisors to get this right when the race is so close. You'd think they would advise him a bit more about the body language and facial expressions but perhaps once he gets out there he just loses it and the real guy takes over.
posted on October 10, 2004 08:33:34 PM new
From one of many sites on alcoholism:
""Alcohol also affects the brain. Killing large amounts of brain cells the more and more the person consumes. This leads to short-term memory loss and eventually what people call "wet brain". This is when the alcoholic's brain no longer functions properly. This is a pre-vegetable state. The alcoholic can no longer put coherent sentences together or
even function their bowels or bladder correctly.""
He can't make a sentence and pretty soon he'll be wearing Depends
posted on October 11, 2004 06:10:41 AM new
crowfarm,
I thought that was a good post. It prompted me to do a little research on alcoholism and the brain.
Drugs change brain structure
Begin with structural changes in the human brain. Long-term drinking literally shrinks this vital organ. Autopsies consistently show that chronic alcoholics have lighter and smaller brains than other people of the same age and gender. Researchers have also observed this shrinking effect in living alcoholics through non-invasive medical tests that give a picture of the brain in action. These tests include magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), positron emission tomography (PET) scans, and computed tomography (CT) scans.2
He's trying to pretend he's more moral than the rest of us even though he's probably sitting at the computer in a trench coat with no clothes on underneath. 
Prevent Bigotry through Education.