The third and final debate.
10-14-2004, 03:39 PM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zippy,Oct 14 2004, 05:47 PM
Was that when he wasn't hiring a trial lawyer? 
Dean
10-15-2004, 05:20 AM
#22
OK...I haven't weighed in on Kerry vs Bush too much, but I have to say I agree with Richard Cohen's column in today's Wash Post:
The President Vanishes
By Richard Cohen
Friday, October 15, 2004; Page A23
For months now I've dropped bets on the presidential election like Hansel (of "Hansel and Gretel") dropped pebbles. For honor and money, I've wagered on George Bush, not because I wanted him to win but rather because I thought he would. Now I'm changing my mind. It's not the tightening polls that have done it -- I knew that would happen -- but rather something I could not have predicted. The president is missing.
The president I have in mind is the funny, good-natured regular guy I once saw on the campaign trail -- a man of surprisingly quick wit and just plain likeability. I contrasted this man to John Kerry, who is as light and as funny as a mud wall, and I thought, "There goes the election."
Where it has mattered most -- the three debates -- Bush has been wooden, ill at ease and downright spooky. He makes bad jokes, cackles at them in the manner of a cinematic serial killer and has lacked the warmth that he not only once had but that I thought would compensate for a disastrous presidency and give him a second -- God help us -- term. In short, he could take over the Bates Motel in an instant.
Just what has happened to Bush I shall get to in an instant. Right now I want to quote that newest font of all political wisdom, Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show," who said at a New Yorker-sponsored breakfast yesterday morning that he had seen at least two Bushes in recent days: the "angry Bush from the second debate" and a thickly muddled one.
Stewart was kidding, but all jokes must be based on truth or else they are not funny. The truth in this case was that Bush has been inconsistent -- definitely not the reliably unswerving man we prefer as our country's steward.
A bit later, Stewart made a serious remark that goes to the heart of what has been Bush's problem. He referred to the president's nonexistent "learning curve," which is indeed troubling. This is a man who is a latter-day Bourbon. Charles Maurice de Talleyrand said of them that "they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." I'm not too sure of the forgetting, but when it comes to learning, Bush has shown little growth. In fact, he has ridiculously maintained otherwise.
Historians may someday say that the beginning of the end for Bush came last April when Time magazine's John Dickerson asked the president at a televised news conference, "What would your biggest mistake be . . . and what lessons have you learned from it?" Bush, who said the question took him by surprise, said he could not come up with one.
Essentially the same question was asked by Linda Grabel, an ordinary voter, at the St. Louis debate. This time, it could not have been a surprise. But this time, too, Bush could offer not a single substantive example. Aside from making "some mistakes in appointing people," everything had gone swimmingly.
This was a preposterous, dishonest answer. It was either the response of someone who is vastly deluded or sticking to a political strategy conceived by people who do not value truth. Either way, it harkens back to that "learning curve" Stewart mentioned and it demolishes Bush's pose as a regular guy, someone approachable -- someone you could like. It is not possible to like someone who cannot admit a mistake. Iraq is the crazy aunt in the attic that Bush will not acknowledge. When she throws the furniture, Bush says you're just hearing things. Yeah, sure.
Had Bush admitted that things went wrong with Iraq, he could have been himself. But he was out there three times telling us what we know is not true. This was Kerry's problem when he was defending his vote in favor of a war that he never, in his gut, thought was a good idea. When he finally was able to say how he really felt, his campaign took off. The man settled into his own skin. He had the better argument. The camera picked it up.
Bush, though, has been hobbled by artifice. The natural has been turned into just another synthetic pol. His only good moments came when he talked about his faith and his family, tapping into a wellspring of emotional truth. Other than that, he was only rarely the politician he used to be -- crushed, not empowered by incumbency. If I could, I'd wager differently. The man I bet on no longer exists.
The President Vanishes
By Richard Cohen
Friday, October 15, 2004; Page A23
For months now I've dropped bets on the presidential election like Hansel (of "Hansel and Gretel") dropped pebbles. For honor and money, I've wagered on George Bush, not because I wanted him to win but rather because I thought he would. Now I'm changing my mind. It's not the tightening polls that have done it -- I knew that would happen -- but rather something I could not have predicted. The president is missing.
The president I have in mind is the funny, good-natured regular guy I once saw on the campaign trail -- a man of surprisingly quick wit and just plain likeability. I contrasted this man to John Kerry, who is as light and as funny as a mud wall, and I thought, "There goes the election."
Where it has mattered most -- the three debates -- Bush has been wooden, ill at ease and downright spooky. He makes bad jokes, cackles at them in the manner of a cinematic serial killer and has lacked the warmth that he not only once had but that I thought would compensate for a disastrous presidency and give him a second -- God help us -- term. In short, he could take over the Bates Motel in an instant.
Just what has happened to Bush I shall get to in an instant. Right now I want to quote that newest font of all political wisdom, Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show," who said at a New Yorker-sponsored breakfast yesterday morning that he had seen at least two Bushes in recent days: the "angry Bush from the second debate" and a thickly muddled one.
Stewart was kidding, but all jokes must be based on truth or else they are not funny. The truth in this case was that Bush has been inconsistent -- definitely not the reliably unswerving man we prefer as our country's steward.
A bit later, Stewart made a serious remark that goes to the heart of what has been Bush's problem. He referred to the president's nonexistent "learning curve," which is indeed troubling. This is a man who is a latter-day Bourbon. Charles Maurice de Talleyrand said of them that "they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing." I'm not too sure of the forgetting, but when it comes to learning, Bush has shown little growth. In fact, he has ridiculously maintained otherwise.
Historians may someday say that the beginning of the end for Bush came last April when Time magazine's John Dickerson asked the president at a televised news conference, "What would your biggest mistake be . . . and what lessons have you learned from it?" Bush, who said the question took him by surprise, said he could not come up with one.
Essentially the same question was asked by Linda Grabel, an ordinary voter, at the St. Louis debate. This time, it could not have been a surprise. But this time, too, Bush could offer not a single substantive example. Aside from making "some mistakes in appointing people," everything had gone swimmingly.
This was a preposterous, dishonest answer. It was either the response of someone who is vastly deluded or sticking to a political strategy conceived by people who do not value truth. Either way, it harkens back to that "learning curve" Stewart mentioned and it demolishes Bush's pose as a regular guy, someone approachable -- someone you could like. It is not possible to like someone who cannot admit a mistake. Iraq is the crazy aunt in the attic that Bush will not acknowledge. When she throws the furniture, Bush says you're just hearing things. Yeah, sure.
Had Bush admitted that things went wrong with Iraq, he could have been himself. But he was out there three times telling us what we know is not true. This was Kerry's problem when he was defending his vote in favor of a war that he never, in his gut, thought was a good idea. When he finally was able to say how he really felt, his campaign took off. The man settled into his own skin. He had the better argument. The camera picked it up.
Bush, though, has been hobbled by artifice. The natural has been turned into just another synthetic pol. His only good moments came when he talked about his faith and his family, tapping into a wellspring of emotional truth. Other than that, he was only rarely the politician he used to be -- crushed, not empowered by incumbency. If I could, I'd wager differently. The man I bet on no longer exists.
10-15-2004, 05:42 AM
#23
Thread Starter
Deb
A very interesting editorial. I agree with Mr. Cohen that the man he voted for no longer exists, but, I'm not sure that he really ever existed. I think the George W. Bush that Mr. Cohen is seeing now is the real one.
A very interesting editorial. I agree with Mr. Cohen that the man he voted for no longer exists, but, I'm not sure that he really ever existed. I think the George W. Bush that Mr. Cohen is seeing now is the real one.
10-15-2004, 05:48 AM
#24
For months all I have heard from everyone (Dems snd Reps) was that this was a slam dunk election, even after the small bounce of the convention.Now the polls seem to say that Bush lost all of the debates, go figure. Wasn't this his strong point, relating to the people, being a folksy everyman.
There were folks here and everywhere, for that matter, that said that Bush would win in a landslide, somehow I don't think that will happen.
10-15-2004, 06:09 AM
#25
What I personally think is that I am disgusted by TWO candidates who think all Americans are stupid and ignorant enough to believe all the allegations they make against each party and each other. It is insulting to my intelligence for these two "statesmen" to stand on national television and distort the truth and engage in their rhetoric -- neither of them deserves to be president -- that's just my humble opinion -- Enjoy the following -- I think its interesting:
Attacks misleading and out of context
Debate highlights philosophical split
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Updated: 1:56 a.m. ET Oct. 14, 2004WASHINGTON - Facts took a holiday in last night's final presidential debate, with both President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry attacking each other with misleading or out-of-context assertions that revealed the deep philosophical divide between the candidates.
Kerry charged that the top 1 percent of income-earners in the United States got $89 billion of Bush's tax cut last year, while Bush asserted that most of the tax cut went to low- and middle-income Americans, "and now the tax code is more fair."
Kerry's statement was correct but was out of context, while Bush was stretching the truth. Put another way, the top 1 percent got about 34 percent of the tax cut
Attacks misleading and out of context
Debate highlights philosophical split
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Updated: 1:56 a.m. ET Oct. 14, 2004WASHINGTON - Facts took a holiday in last night's final presidential debate, with both President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry attacking each other with misleading or out-of-context assertions that revealed the deep philosophical divide between the candidates.
Kerry charged that the top 1 percent of income-earners in the United States got $89 billion of Bush's tax cut last year, while Bush asserted that most of the tax cut went to low- and middle-income Americans, "and now the tax code is more fair."
Kerry's statement was correct but was out of context, while Bush was stretching the truth. Put another way, the top 1 percent got about 34 percent of the tax cut
10-15-2004, 07:51 AM
#28
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Deptford, New Jersey
Posts: 3,698
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zippy,Oct 15 2004, 09:48 AM
There were folks here and everywhere, for that matter, that said that Bush would win in a landslide, somehow I don't think that will happen.
10-15-2004, 09:27 AM
#29
Originally Posted by charlie,Oct 15 2004, 10:51 AM
the only poll that matters is Nov. 2nd and it's electorial votes that matter not popular and in this case Bush has a clear lead... as of today but then again it's just a poll as well.
10-15-2004, 11:07 AM
#30
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: West Springfield MA
Posts: 2,590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Zippy,Oct 15 2004, 09:27 AM
So I see that the now right does NOT subscribe to the belief in one person, one vote.