Kerry’s anger is understandable, given the unprecedented hole this nation is in thanks to four years of Bush’s policies. I wouldn’t rule out some hostility over the GOP’s dirty tactics as well (Swift Bullshitters for Bush, anyone?).
Bush’s anger is, well, Bush. He’s never taken criticism well, by all reports, and this election is one big referendum on his policies. That’s why elaborate steps are taken to ensure he only speaks in front of friendly audiences during his campaign stops.
I want to know, have they scheduled a cage match yet? I’d even go pay-per-view for that.
No, you see, that might alienate his base.
I thought that was great. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m sick of politicians who try to pander to their constituents with “I’m just a blue collar working Joe, just like you guys!” Like fuck you are. When was the last time you carried your own wallet, you bloated Washington plutocrat? Ten points to Kerry for not being afraid of the fact that he and Bush are significantly wealthier than 99% of the rest of the people in this country.
Hentor the Barbarian:
That would be spectacular. He’s got my vote this year no matter what, but of all the things that would lead me to send him money early and often for the '08 elections, extending access to abortions to all people who wish to have one, rollling back the Hatch amendment, etc., would rank close to the top.
As to whether he can pull such a thing off, given what’s likely to be a nearly evenly divided Congress, I’ve got my doubts. Prochoice folks in Congress have been wimping out for years and years.
What’s more likely, more possible, is that he’ll re-lift the moratorium on informing people of the existence of abortion services as an option, and will again make eligible for funding the family planning & education services of some international organizations that, in addition to such services and via separate funding streams, also offer abortion or abortion-information services.
They can’t. To run a third party ad like that by a candidate is coordinating with the campaign, and that’s illegal.
When the president said, “I own a timber company? News to me!” it seemed like a far more elitist line than Kerry’s line telling people that they probably didn’t earn more than $200,000 a year. I kind of wish Kerry had shot back, “If you don’t even know your own finances, how can we trust you to set the budget for an entire country?”
And Kerry’s point about the S-corporations was entirely on-subject: Bush was claiming that 700,000 (?) small businesses would be hurt by Kerry’s tax proposal, and Kerry was demonstrating that at least some of these “small businesses” were little more than employee-less tax shelters used by the wealthy.
Indeed, Kerry got this information from Cheney’s favorite Internets site.
Daniel
I’m just disappointed that Kerry didn’t use Rude Pundit’s suggested response to the “global test” business.
Me too, but I took Kerry’s silence after Bush delivered that line to be the sound of him thinking “Oh shit, did I get bad info? Did I just make a major gaffe?” In which case it would have been foolhardy of him to push the issue.
Interesting that the most memorable part of the evening for you was a demonstrable deception on the part of Mr. Bush.
It goes a lot deeper and a lot further back than this election. History might lead one to conclude that, just as with Saddam, for Bush, this battle against Kerry is personal.
Kerry certainly didn’t say anything of the sort. His point was that the overwhelming majority of Americans will not be affected by his proposed tax increase. The average per capita income in the US is around $32,000 a year. If you got “trailer trash” out of that, then perhaps the elitist charge should be turned around.
My vote: John “I have a plan” Kerry slightly edged out George “We must kill the terrorists” Bush in this debate.
But I predict Bush will win the election. I hate to bring back the words “siilent majority” but I believe it exists and I believe they would rather have a hawk at the helm than a dove right now.
The biggest plus that Bush has right now: There has been no major attacks on our soil since 9/11. His plan to keep them engaged “over there” so they won’t come and bother us over here seems to be working.
When people are getting their heads chopped off, people get scared. They want to feel safe. That means a strong leader who won’t blink. Even if he’s a bumbling idiot, at least Bush has shown he has resolve. And I believe that gives him an edge.
Just for the sake of discussion, and I agree with you that he would face an enormous wave of opposition, but this is what he said:
Yeah, he’s a firm and resolute leader. So was Custer.
Not that it matters – or makes Bush’s statement “WHAT SOME WOOD” any more funny - but here is the correction posted by factcheck.org regarding Bush’s profit $84 profit from his timber business.
I am glad you posted this, elucidator. This Bush lie has been pissing me off since I heard it in one of his town (of hand-picked sycophants) hall forums a few months ago.
Just for those who don’t or won’t turn the page to see the monster at the end of that book, here’s the bottom line. Remember, Bush’s line is that non-defense discretionary spending was going up 15% per year under Clinton, and he’s winnowed it down to 1% per year.
As Three Dog Night said so eloquently so many years ago: Liar! Liar!
“Hey big spender…”
I find I have no need to reply to PunditLisa’s post after that.
Question about Bush knowing what companies he has a piece of. Didn’t he put his finances into a blind trust before he was sworn in?
Well, I’ve been throwing salt over my shoulder to keep the dragons away for years…It must be working.
As has been pointed out, Al Qaeda takes the “long view”. If we followed your logic, we could conclude, for example, that our approach following the first attempted bombing of the World Trade Center was working in the many years after even though the same people who believe that Bush’s approach is working now condemn that previous approach.
Besides which, there are many things that have been done since 9/11. Some of them, like the invasion of Afghanistan and the general tightening of security, had widespread bipartisan popular support. It could be simply those things that any President would have done (and others more likely better than this President) that are working.
What we know about Iraq, by contrast, is that it is a freakin’ disaster there and that, according to that widely respected British think-tank that others have linked to (I need help here as I don’t have the link), it has been a big help for Al Qaeda’s recruiting.
Since by the time I clicked over here last night, you guys were already up to page 13, I still haven’t had a chance to catch up with what everyone else has said. So forgive me if I repeat what’s already been said before.
Question 2:
Bush:
Wow, a lot to work with in ust one question.
First, it seems like Saddam was hardly the only bad actor who could give WMDs to AQ. Even in 2002, it was clear that Iran was much closer to being nuclear-capable than Saddam was, and Iran was on far closer terms with Islamic terrorists, including al-Qaeda, than Saddam was. Iran had aided actual terrorist operations during the 1990s; that’s rather more significant than giving terrorists’ widows some money to live off of. In addition, Pakistan certainly could have acted as the nexus between nukes and nuts. They had the nukes already, they were already sharing the technology hither and yon, and there are plenty of Islamic radicals in positions of power in Pakistan who might be friendly to AQ.
‘Unique’ threat, my ass. It wasn’t even the primary threat in this regard.
Second, “He was trying to get rid of sanctions for a reason: He wanted to restart his weapons programs.” Hell, he probably wanted sanctions lifted for a whole boatload of reasons. At any rate, a desire to re-start weapons programs is so far from even a pathetic excuse for a casus belli that it isn’t even worth bothering with.
Third, “Saddam Hussein was gaming the oil-for-food program to get rid of sanctions.” If this bothers Bush, then maybe he should consider canning his running mate, because, as Digby sums up in this excellent post with supporting links and everything, Cheney was gaming the sanctions from his end when he was running Halliburton.
Oh, that’s right: Bush never fires anyone over anything. Silly me.
Fourth: “So I tried diplomacy, went to the United Nations.” And it worked. Not only were we finding that there apparently were no WMDs, but Saddam was destroying his medium-range missiles that the renewed inspections did find. Apparently that was a disappointment to Bush, because of:
Fifth: “I wasn’t happy when we found out there wasn’t weapons”. Funny, I’d have thought he would have been relieved. If Saddam didn’t have WMDs, then Saddam couldn’t have given WMDs to terrorists. Yeah, it meant we wouldn’t have looked good, but we’d no longer have to stay up nights wondering when Saddam’s WMDs were going to be used against us. And as we’ve known since May 2003, if Saddam had had WMDs, Rumsfeld’s obsession with minimizing the number of troops involved would have resulted in their being looted. Which would have surely caused them to fall into the hands of terrorists.
Geez, all that and I haven’t gotten past the second question. I’m gonna have to skip over some stuff if I’m gonna get back to Subchapter S before the final debate!