tonight's town hall debate

[Nitpick]

It's probably just the lid of Bush's battery compartment.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I looked at the pic. I don't think he was miked.

First based on the look. While I see a block at first glance, it doesn't look like a block on further inspection, it looks like my mind completes a block shape based on shadow and fabric color. Of course I'm looking at only one picture, and it isn't of the best quality.

Second based on reason. No one would but a block recording device square in the middle of his back that high up. It would have been put on his belt. Somewhere where it wouldn't have the chance of being seen. Never would anyone taping on a listening device think, "right between the shoulder blades ought to do it."

Third, also based on reason, I don't think he did well enough to make me believe he stacked the deck behind the scenes.

I use to own a scanner. Great fun, until most cellphones went digital. If I still had my scanner and I lived near the debate, I might be inclined to check out the various chatter (security, police, medical aid etc.)

I also doubt that Bush would be "that" stupid to be wired.

Charlie (next Bush will be healing people in the audience or talking to dead relatives) Monoxide

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Big mistakte, John Kerry isn't doing as well with women voters as Bill Clinton did. He should have tried to knock Bush out of the water by giving ideas and not attacking Bush's record.

Very Salient observation.
Kerry's main bloc of voters should and MUST be (for him to win )women w/children.
He has changed his message a bit since replacing his campaign adviser , but I think it may be a little too late.

Women voters view security as an issue high on their agenda ( list of concerns) but it is not as a one issue issue. They rather view security in a broader context then men ( sorry guys and I'm one of you. ) where there are issues like health care, education, crime that exist in the same sphere as Iraq. Kerry could've jumped on that , but didn't.

 

[Mercutio]

"Because I want them all voting for me." He was making a joke about wanting all potential appointees voting for him.

Thanks. I knew I could not have heard it right, and I am very glad to be wrong this time!.

 

[Nitpick]

Third, also based on reason, I don't think he did well enough to make me believe he stacked the deck behind the scenes.

I'm not so sure about this one. I think it would require quite a lot of skill to listen to what someone tells you through a hidden earphone and talk at the same time as if you were just developing your own ideas. You'd have to be able to concentrate on two ideas at the same time (or two segments of a chain of thought), you'd have to quickly understand what you're being told so you'll have the right intonation et cetera. You can't just listen-recite-listen...
I think it would require more skill to cheat than to be honest under such circumstances.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

NA
Ask Randi about "cold readings" with an assistant in the audience picking out marks...err "subjects".

 

[Regnad Kcin]

It's probably just the lid of Bush's battery compartment.

No, it's just a bit of his shoulder holster.

 

[peptoabysmal]

"Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES" - George Bush (Sr.)

Two wrongs make a right, or just plain irrelevant?

"When I left you, I was but the learner; now I am the master!" - Darth Vader

It's official, you're a geek.

"There's only one man who would dare give me the raspberry... LONE STAR!" - Dark Helmet

Making fun of my avatar?

And, as we all know, Texas is the Lone Star state, where George W hails from; the circle is now complete.

You have some personal issue with Texas?

 

[peptoabysmal]

Bush was asked that question a few months back. I can't remember the questioner, but it was pretty much something like, "What would you do differently". George put on that "searching my memory" look, and confessed that he couldn't think of a single thing he would do differently. He really should have been more prepared for that question by now.

Could he truly believe that he wouldn't do anything differently? I doubt it. I do stuff all the time and wish I had done it a little differently. Don't we all? If he admits to doing the slightest thing wrong it will be page 1 of the New York Times for the next week and a half. I wouldn't admit anything either.

Well, they were both guilty of that to some extent. The difference being that Bush couldn't wait his turn and had to shout over the moderator when Kerry pushed his buttons. But I have never seen any presidential debate when I felt that either candidate was answering the question. Interestingly, this one came closer than most, but I was still frustrated. I really thought Kerry could have gone for the juglar more than he did.

I was disappointed in the one instance he did shout over the moderator.

LOL. Interesting what people think about what they read. You probably think To Kill a Mockingbird is about greedy trial lawyers.

How nicely you combine a strawman and an ad-hominem in one senctence.

I admit that Kerry had the advantage of not having had to put his policies to the test, but it should be obvious to anyone except the most salivary of Bush fans that the foreign policy of the current administration has alienated our allies, squandered the good will from 9/11 and led to an increase in global terrorism. Plus my friends in England are afraid to come here for fear they may be sent to Gitmo. (One of them used to be a folk singer.)

What policy? As near as I can tell it boils down to this
1) Raise taxes to make his term in office look good on paper with an artificially balanced budget.

2) Ask the UN's permission for dealings with terrorist countries. That has worked out so well for Israel. And after the latest CIA report, it is ibvious that the UN is where the real scandal of profit taking, graft and corruption regarding Iraq is, not the myth of Halliburton.

You have friends who donate money to Hamas? If not, don't worry about it.

I really thought Kerry overdid it with the "tax cuts for the rich" line. Not that it isn't true, but certainly it is not the only problem/solution out there. Bush deserves to be hammered for his undying devotion to the upper class, but the issue becomes stale after a while. There were so many other things Kerry could have nailed him on. I think Bush got off light on the environment issue. One of his first flip-flops was to reverse his standing on arsenic in water levels. Bush clearly lost the Kyoto issue, but Kerry didn't press it.

I get a tax cut thanks to Bush and I am definitely not in the top 1%. Anecdotal yes, but I know there are millions of other Americans who must be smart enough to realize that they too recieve tax cuts and are not in the top 1%.

Bush lost the Kyoto issue? LOL! Bush is smart enough to not let America fall for a complete scam (which Kerry admitted in this debate) and he loses? LMAO!

Honestly, it seemed to me that Kerry was pulling his punches. I really wish he hadn't.

Kerry is a fine and polished presenter / debater, but I don't think even he can believe the stuff that is coming out of his own mouth. I am not really worried that much about his policies because I think it's just a bunch of liberal soft targets to appeal to his base. If he gets elected, I think he will be almost as conservative as Bush (who is not all that conservative). To make a long story short, It is hard for him to sell a product that even he doesn't believe in.

edited to correct tags and junk like that.

 

[Tricky]

Could he truly believe that he wouldn't do anything differently? I doubt it. I do stuff all the time and wish I had done it a little differently. Don't we all? If he admits to doing the slightest thing wrong it will be page 1 of the New York Times for the next week and a half. I wouldn't admit anything either.

You might be right about it being on page one, but I think you may be wrong about whether or not it would hurt him. I think that the most admirable people in the world are those who can admit when they have screwed up. I'll bet it would help his polls, not hurt them, provided he stuck to things where his screw-up was obvious. Like the stem cell issue.

How nicely you combine a strawman and an ad-hominem in one senctence.

You're welcome. It's been a long time since I flamed you, and I was missing it. Maybe you noticed the smilie. Your a good man, Pepe, and as such, I have to give you grief. It is my calling.

What policy? As near as I can tell it boils down to this
1) Raise taxes to make his term in office look good on paper with an artificially balanced budget.

2) Ask the UN's permission for dealings with terrorist countries. That has worked out so well for Israel. And after the latest CIA report, it is ibvious that the UN is where the real scandal of profit taking, graft and corruption regarding Iraq is, not the myth of Halliburton.

Hmm. I see you have put a lot of thought into this. But even you must see that the "classic Republicans" recognized the virtue of paying as you go. I will not deny that many Democrats have been very bad about spending money they don't have. But Bush makes them look like pikers.

But your little sound bite about "asking permission" from the UN is pretty weak. Kerry said (and I agree) that we should work with our allies, not alienate them. If this means sometimes backing off some of the things we want to do because the worldwide repurcussions would make our preferred course of action a bad move, well, that's diplomacy. I cannot believe that p!ssing off every country in the world except Israel was a good move. Fortunately, a few, like England, have decided that the benefits of remaing our ally outweigh the pleasure of telling George to stuff it. For now, anyway. Let's not push our luck.

I get a tax cut thanks to Bush and I am definitely not in the top 1%. Anecdotal yes, but I know there are millions of other Americans who must be smart enough to realize that they too recieve tax cuts and are not in the top 1%.

So did I, but I blew it on dinner and a movie. What did you do with yours?

For the vast majority of Americans, the tax cuts were insignificant. For the very wealthy, they were a windfall of monumental proportions, which is exactly why George has the most enormous election coffer in history. Them millions ain't comin' from people like you.

Bush lost the Kyoto issue? LOL! Bush is smart enough to not let America fall for a complete scam (which Kerry admitted in this debate) and he loses? LMAO!

Apparently you were too busy L-ing your A Off that you missed what was actually said. Kerry said Kyoto was flawed (not a complete scam), but we should have worked with our allies and the rest of the world to fix it, rather than just throwing away years of work. Yeah, Bush was hammered on this issue. Admittedly, though, most Americans won't even recognize that. Pity.

Kerry is a fine and polished presenter / debater, but I don't think even he can believe the stuff that is coming out of his own mouth. I am not really worried that much about his policies because I think it's just a bunch of liberal soft targets to appeal to his base. If he gets elected, I think he will be almost as conservative as Bush (who is not all that conservative). To make a long story short, It is hard for him to sell a product that even he doesn't believe in.

Oh, I agree that politicians as a class are pretty much scum. But there's scum, and there's scum, and George's scum is scummier that most. I could recite the litany of all the ways he's been an absolutely horrible president, but it wouldn't make any difference to you or to most folks.

Simply put, I cannot see any way that Kerry could be worse than Bush has been. It is almost a physical impossibility. And I really don't care much that Kerry is a better debater than Bush, although I will say that the ability to think on your feet should be an important trait to look for in a president.

What I saw was a president trying desperately to cover his mistakes and even more desperately to try to find someting good to talk about. I thought it was interesting that he kept mentioning the jobs report, which almost everyone agrees was bad news. That is why he lost the debate. Not because of his ineptitude as a debater, but because of his ineptitude as a president.

Will Kerry be better? I don't know for sure. I don't see how he could be worse.

 

[pgwenthold]

You might be right about it being on page one, but I think you may be wrong about whether or not it would hurt him. I think that the most admirable people in the world are those who can admit when they have screwed up. I'll bet it would help his polls, not hurt them, provided he stuck to things where his screw-up was obvious. Like the stem cell issue.

I think the biggest reason this would work is because he has a scapegoat. He can blame the intelligence agencies for the bad information, and claim that the administrations mistake was to put too much trust in the intelligence angencies, which apparently grew weak under the previous administration. Then announce an initiative to improve the operations of the intelligence agencies, and take a "Fool me once..." attitude, letting it be known that the administration will not be mislead again.

Hence, they can admit a mistake (and who can blame them for putting full confidence in the CIA) but can proclaim how they are going to fix it so that the CIA mistakes won't happen again.

 

[peptoabysmal]

You might be right about it being on page one, but I think you may be wrong about whether or not it would hurt him. I think that the most admirable people in the world are those who can admit when they have screwed up. I'll bet it would help his polls, not hurt them, provided he stuck to things where his screw-up was obvious. Like the stem cell issue.

Bush hasn't banned any stem cell research, he just said he won't sign any funding for any stem cell research that takes any further human life. In days gone by, that would have showed great compassion and ethical responsibility, not a screw-up.

You're welcome. It's been a long time since I flamed you, and I was missing it. Maybe you noticed the smilie. Your a good man, Pepe, and as such, I have to give you grief. It is my calling.

Heh, I miss that too. Maybe if there's a next time I will have improved a bit.

Hmm. I see you have put a lot of thought into this. But even you must see that the "classic Republicans" recognized the virtue of paying as you go. I will not deny that many Democrats have been very bad about spending money they don't have. But Bush makes them look like pikers.

Saying you have a balanced budget when the nation is over 7 trillion dollars in national debt is like saying, "I have enough money to go to the movies, but I still have that 30 year mortgage".

But your little sound bite about "asking permission" from the UN is pretty weak. Kerry said (and I agree) that we should work with our allies, not alienate them. If this means sometimes backing off some of the things we want to do because the worldwide repurcussions would make our preferred course of action a bad move, well, that's diplomacy. I cannot believe that p!ssing off every country in the world except Israel was a good move. Fortunately, a few, like England, have decided that the benefits of remaing our ally outweigh the pleasure of telling George to stuff it. For now, anyway. Let's not push our luck.

I'm glad to see that Howard won. Australia has been the US's most loyal ally, even more so than UK.

So did I, but I blew it on dinner and a movie. What did you do with yours?

LOL
I built a new corral. I still get a reduction on taxes compared with pre-Bush years, how about you?

For the vast majority of Americans, the tax cuts were insignificant. For the very wealthy, they were a windfall of monumental proportions, which is exactly why George has the most enormous election coffer in history. Them millions ain't comin' from people like you.

The "average" American works for the government 4 to 5 months out of a year to pay his taxes, essentially working for the government for those months. The American Revolution came about because the King was taxing us at 50%. A truly rich person has a smaller percentage, true. That smaller percentage works out to a lot more than you or I make in a year. Is that fair? I don't believe in punishing people because they have gotten wealthy.

Apparently you were too busy L-ing your A Off that you missed what was actually said. Kerry said Kyoto was flawed (not a complete scam), but we should have worked with our allies and the rest of the world to fix it, rather than just throwing away years of work. Yeah, Bush was hammered on this issue. Admittedly, though, most Americans won't even recognize that. Pity.

We weren't the authors of that bill, how were we to "fix" it after it had already been accepted by less informed countries? You can't make a contract and then re-write it after the signatures are dried.

Oh, I agree that politicians as a class are pretty much scum. But there's scum, and there's scum, and George's scum is scummier that most. I could recite the litany of all the ways he's been an absolutely horrible president, but it wouldn't make any difference to you or to most folks.

Interesting. I see Bush as being more genuine and Kerry as being a smarmy, polished Senator with 20 years experience in using many words to say nothing.

Simply put, I cannot see any way that Kerry could be worse than Bush has been. It is almost a physical impossibility. And I really don't care much that Kerry is a better debater than Bush, although I will say that the ability to think on your feet should be an important trait to look for in a president.

If Kerry gets elected, I'm quite sure he will provide me with plenty of material to post rants about.

What I saw was a president trying desperately to cover his mistakes and even more desperately to try to find someting good to talk about. I thought it was interesting that he kept mentioning the jobs report, which almost everyone agrees was bad news. That is why he lost the debate. Not because of his ineptitude as a debater, but because of his ineptitude as a president.

Perhaps everyone you listen to calls it bad news. I don't think it is bad at all in the context of an economy recovering from the dot-com bubble bursting.
While we're on it, what about out-sourcing? The US in-sources jobs from companies like Japanese auto makers at a far greater rate than any jobs have been out-sourced. If we do away with out-sourcing, do we have to do away with in-sourcing?

Will Kerry be better? I don't know for sure. I don't see how he could be worse.

The good news is that we Americans are strong enough to overcome the deficiencies of either one of these idiots.

 

[SezMe]

It must be really reassuring to live in such a plainly structured 2-Bit world.

Dontcha mean 1-bit. Like black-or-white, on-or-off, with-us or against-us logic. Good thing he'll be gone, no matter what, when all the world is 64-bit.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Let's see if we can distill this down to an easily digestible one liner that even the lowest common denominator can understand.

Being unswervingly constant doesn't make You right, You can be consistently wrong, as we see with Mr. Bush

If Your beliefs, doctrine,design,etc. cannot stand up to scrutiny -close or broad- then they are worth approximately crap. Further if they consistently show that you are incorrect then not only are you a fool but your flowerer's are as well. Red Kool-Aid anyone?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Watching the debate, I was half expecting Bush to stomp his feet and pout. Well.. he didn't stomp his feet.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Anyone think the courageous Mr. Kerry will enter this debate?

Michael Reagan Challenges Kerry to Stem Cell Debate

Charging that Kerry's recent comments regarding the Bush administration "sacrificing science for extreme right-wing ideology" are misleading and false and are needlessly politicizing this important issue, Reagan said he wants to confront Kerry with the truth.

"John Kerry is lying, and the media [are] letting him get away with it," Reagan told NewsMax.com.

Noting that there is no ban on stem cell research but merely a ban on spending federal funds on some embryonic stem cell (ESC) research, Reagan said that President Bush already has provided federal funds for research on adult stem cells (ASC), which, unlike embryonic stems cells, have already proven to be effective in curing diseases.

 

[Brown]

He was making a joke about wanting all potential appointees voting for him.

Your take on what Bush intended may be correct, but the impression I got had to do with the 2000 Supreme Court debacle that awarded the election to Bush.

Bush was asked: "Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?"

Bush replied, "I'm not telling," and got a laugh. Then he added, "I really don't have ... haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me." Again, the audience laughed.

The impression I got was that the "them" referred not to potential appointees (who hadn't been selected), but to current appointees. This would mean that Bush was referring to the events of 2000, when there was concern that Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor might retire, and they did not want their successors to be named by Gore. Justice O'Connor said as much at the time, calling Gore's election "Terrible." Five members of the Court, including Rehnquist and O'Connor, later voted in favor of Bush on the stay issue, which effectively decided the election in his favor, and on the decision on the merits.

Four members of the Court, including two Republican presidential appointess, dissented from the Court's actions.

In other words, current members of the Court were (and still are) concerned about who their successors will be, and Bush did not want to comment about potential successors out of mock concern that he might offend the current members of the Court, who might be called upon again to decide the election in his favor.

 

[corplinx]

In other words, current members of the Court were (and still are) concerned about who their successors will be, and Bush did not want to comment about potential successors out of mock concern that he might offend the current members of the Court, who might be called upon again to decide the election in his favor.

Brown, I think this was a very provocative post. But I think the "supreme court will decide who is president......... again" is just silly. Then again, it looks like the democrats are amassing an army of lawyers to challenge results all over the country so you might have a point. SCOTUS may have to step in and put an end to nonsense in several states like they did in 2000 with Florida's three county recount.

 

[Brown]

Brown, I think this was a very provocative post. But I think the "supreme court will decide who is president......... again" is just silly. Then again, it looks like the democrats are amassing an army of lawyers to challenge results all over the country so you might have a point. SCOTUS may have to step in and put an end to nonsense in several states like they did in 2000 with Florida's three county recount.

I certainly hope that the election is not decided in the courts. Although it is not silly to think that the U.S. Supreme Court would intervene, it is very unlikely that the Court would do so.

I have already corrected you once concerning the supposed three-county recount. Nevertheless, you have repeated an assertion that is factually incorrect. Contrary to your assertion, the Florida Supreme Court specifically allowed statewide relief. Once again, I invite you to show us where the Florida court denied statewide relief.

The requested Florida recounts in 2000 were made according to state law. They were not nonsense. Moreover, the Supreme Court's actions did not pertain to "nonsense in several states," but only to the Florida votes.

 

[Blue Monk]

Brown, I think this was a very provocative post. But I think the "supreme court will decide who is president......... again" is just silly. Then again, it looks like the democrats are amassing an army of lawyers to challenge results all over the country so you might have a point. SCOTUS may have to step in and put an end to nonsense in several states like they did in 2000 with Florida's three county recount.

The army of lawyers is probably more about real-time campaigning that any serious designs to challenge the election, barring any obvious irregularities of course.

The U.S. Civil Rights Commission originally speculated that as many as a million minorities nationwide may have been disenfranchised in the 2000 election but in it’s final report said that it would be impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement.

The important point, however, is that it is widely believed among minorities that they were targeted in the 2000 election so it is savvy politics for the Democrats, who desperately need a high minority turnout, to make a big show of protecting the integrity of the election, whether it is sincere or not.

I’m not saying it’s a completely cynical effort as there were some problems with the last election but I suspect that the Democrats will benefit more from a very public effort to protect minority voting rights than it will ever garner from actually correcting any discovered irregularities.