Dru Blood - I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings: Debate Roundup from my blogroll

DruBlood

Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact

Feed the Bleed

Full Bleed Fundraiser

Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5

Search

Syndicate this site (XML)

Special thanks

adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru

Powered byMovable Type 1.5

« I truly am in love | Main | Debate Roundup, Part 2 »

Debate Roundup from my blogroll

October 1, 2004

Santosha:

2. i was thrilled that kerry said the 2 things i happened to be yelling at the tv a) gw kept going on about kerry and his flip flopping and how he himself never changes his mind and sticks to his convictions blah blah blah. kerry came back with (something to this effect) "mature and intelligent individuals study the facts and let their opinions and worldviews evolve as new facts presents themselves, to not do so is shgortsighted and stubborn" b) gw says iraq was the enemy who perpetrated 9/11 and kerry totally called him on that and george could only come back with a petulant "i know it was osama!" (and now i better not say anything else about osama b/c we still haven't found him!)

Tia:

and on an not-so-important but still very noticable note, how great of a speaker is kerry, especially when put on a stage with bush? i'm sorry mr president, but when someone gives you 30 seconds to make a rebuttal, could you not spend 15 of it pausing, looking down, holding your podium and saying "uhh?" i mean i know he had time to write out his answers to the original questions, but you could tell when he was faced with directly giving rebuttals about things kerry said on the spot, that he was just not prepared. could this be that he doesnt know what he's going to be doing? does he need other people to answer his questions for him?
am i the only one who thinks he seemed like a puppet just wating for someone to stick their hands up his ass and make his mouth start moving?

Rox Populi : The Miami Massacre

Impatient, arrogant, noticeably irritated, and snapping back his answers in a tone which suggested that he was insulted to even be questioned, Bush was at his very best last night. Except, of course, when he shows us five different ways to say Kim Jong-il, pronounces mullah as "moo-lah," and asks Jim Lehrer for extra time to respond to Kerry and gives the camera a deer in the headlights look for a few seconds before forming a sentence. While that may not be his best, that's just classic.

Mouse Words: Mixed feelings

And the best was the way he hinted at the fact that the rules were tilted to favor Bush. When Bush would all but demand the last word to every single exchange by whining and pouting, Kerry acted like he would generously allow it. After all, he seemed to be saying, why not let him have the last word? It's clear that I'm the better choice. That was hard to do and he faltered a bit--it's really, truly unfair to give Bush every advantage because he's stupid and the urge is to even it out. Unfair to the voters, that is.

I have to be incredibly lazy

[p6 also has running commentary written during the debate, just check back through the archive starting here and ending here.]

[more to come]

Posted at October 1, 2004 9:57 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt.riceweevil.com/tb/1919

Comments

I find a lot of these to be incredibly frustrating.

Why is the level of criticism of Bush reduced to calling him an idiot 35 different ways or talking about how they candidates talked, made faces, etc.?

Am I the only one that walked away thinking that a) Kerry completely handcuffed himself and b) that they both stuck to about 5 talking points that they just regurgitated again and again?

Posted by: zagg at October 1, 2004 12:45 PM

Zagg, I sort of feel the same way, but at the same time, Bush didn't really offer anything to criticize. He didn't actually SAY anything, and, you are right, he brought up the same 5 talking points over and over again.

Kerry still doesn't have my vote, but he did very definitely outdo Bush in this debate. like Santosha, I could have done without the repeated promise to "hunt down and kill terrorists" - but between the two of them, Kerry had more substance and more style.

It would have definitely been a richer debate if someone not affiliated with either party had been allowed to debate.

Posted by: drublood at October 1, 2004 1:03 PM

It would have definitely been a richer debate if someone not affiliated with either party had been allowed to debate.

Ohmygod. Yes.

I think Nader's presence really would have highlighted how similar the two guys were. Rather than having a debate about who could better "win" the war on terror, Nader would have questioned the whole thing and presented an anti-war position.

He wouldn't have given Bush a complete pass on the International Criminal Court, like Kerry did. He would have pointed out that Bush was not the only president to back out on Kyoto. Clinton never lifted a finger on it.

And somehow the two had a debate on foreign policy without ever mentioning Israel/Palestine; without really talking about Afghanistan at all; without talking about the WTO or IMF; etc., etc.

Kerry let Bush off the hook so many times. All I could think while watching it was, "How can anyone allow themselves to be out-debated by Bush?" I don't know if Kerry really lost. But he made it very close.

He said nothing that the anti-war movement can hang its collective hat on.

I think the other debates are only going to be worse.

Posted by: Zagg at October 1, 2004 1:56 PM

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:

URL:
Remember Me? YesNo
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)