I've had a whole day in which to think about my overall impressions of the final presidential debate. I've watched a little television, read some articles, and thought about what people have been saying and writing. I think the most descriptive and concise statement characterizing the final presidential debate is by William Rivers Pitt:
There was a statesman and a salesman on that debate stage on Wednesday night. Kerry, the statesman, was calm and clear, in command of the facts, and not afraid to stare into the camera at the American people and tell some hard truths. Bush, the salesman, left behind the muddled foolishness of the first debate and the screaming histrionics of the second debate, in favor of an aw-shucks smirk and a series of ill-timed snickers that makes one truly wonder if he knows his job is on the line. All the pundits agreed that Bush, having lost the first two debates, needed to dominate during this third and final meeting. He failed completely to do so.
Still, no one has stated the obvious thing. During the debate, president Bush was clearly channeling the infamous American Idol contestant, William Hung.
Today, the vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, called John Kerry a bad man or something. She said he employed a tawdry political tactic by mentioning their daughter; the fact that she's a lesbian. Are the Cheney's ashamed of their daughter? Only a guilt-ridden social conservative would think there was anything derogatory at all about that.
In the course of my own spirit channeling and in other family values related comments, my dead mother was pleased to hear that John Kerry remembers what his own dead mother told him about Integrity.
She also reminded me to buy a package of condoms, just in case I wanted to enlist in one of George Bush's Armies of Compassion that will be spreading democracy around the world. She said some quick, unsolicited compassion is okay, but that I should protect myself against any sexually transmitted democracy.
Wow, people really do see the same thing very differently.
William Rivers Pitt said - "Kerry, the statesman, was calm and clear, in command of the facts, and not afraid to stare into the camera at the American people and tell some hard truths."
I don't think Kerry would know the truth if it smacked him square in the face. I'll concede that he is a better speaker than George W. but then again, most liars are gifted with sly tongues and Kerry certainly fits that "norm."
J f Z October 15, 2004 03:54 AM PDT True. Some people look at Bush and see their buddy speaking their language.
All I could imagine Bush saying during the debate was "She Bang!" Heh. That and his wink-wink, nod-nod, odd-sounding Beavis snicker.
The ABSOLUTE best was when Dubya got on a roll and said Kerry made Kennedy look like the conservative senator from Massachusetts. Then the Beavis snicker. *crickets* *silence* He was laughing at his own joke and looking around.
He must have forgotten he wasn't on the compaign trail, where the crowd will cheer him say anything and everything. Instructed not to clap or make noise during the debate, the audience was appropriately silent. Dubya waited for a reaction. Nervously snickered again. Wait ... Nothing.
It was so uncomfortable, I actually said, "oh, no ..." out loud to the TV. I honestly imagined the American Idol judges sitting at their table, next to Bob Schieffer, groaning.
I thought I heard Bob Schieffer say something like, "So ... anyway ..." It was pretty ugly. He would have been gonged. He died behind that podium ... again.
Being out of the closet and part of her father's and the President's public campaign has made her fair (or not) game...her father talked about it publically as part of his campaigning effort so...perhaps this is a grey area. Should Kerry have asked permission of the Mary to talk about her sexuality, after her parents already did it?
Frankly I don't think she should have been brought into it in the first place. I mean she isn't running for office right? So why drag her into it? But, since the Cheney's did so, I guess she is "fair game" but I don't think the Cheney's thought about it all the way through prior to their bringing her into the mud slinging ring. Perhaps they were giving the Democrats too much credit and thought they had more class than that...*frat boy snicker* heh
Apologizing for my hideous syntax error. I meant to say:
"Should Kerry have asked permission of the Cheneys or Mary to talk about her sexuality, after her parents already did it?
J f Z October 17, 2004 05:25 PM PDT I believe that family members of any political candidate running for public office choose to publicly support that candidacy or remain silent and uninvolved.
The daughters of John Kerry are active. The daughters of George Bush are active. Hell, even Bush Sr and Barbara are out campaigning -- as much as their advanced age and lowered energy level permits, anyway.
Believe me, it's not a matter of Dick Cheney giving the Democrats too much credit or any expectation of class or a lack of it. It's simply a matter of ongoing hypocrisy, deceit, and talking out of both sides of his mouth.
When the Cheney's say, "John Kerry is not a good man. Here's a man that will say anything to get elected," and they support a president that woud go so far as amending the very constitution of the United States simply in order to lure social-conservative voters, their righteous indignation should fall on deaf ears.
The Cheney's little staged display of being victimized by politics is ludicrous only a short time after Dick Cheney had the temerity to share his prediction that 'the terrorists will kill you if you vote for Kerry', or some such thing.
Dick Cheney would be better off and a happier person if you would simply allow him to retire to his secure and undisclosed location where he can leisurely read a few more Tom Clancy novels without having to set U.S. foreign policy by them.
Seriously, let Cheney chill out somewhere, out of government service. He needs to enjoy how ever many heartbeats he has left in him somewhere more peaceful and less stressful than Washington, D.C.
Umm, GWB isn't attempting to "lure social-conservative voters." He is standing for something he believes in, not wavering or flip-flopping and not doing what's in his best interest politically...maybe that's why y'all don't understand him or like him, he sticks to his beliefs and to what he says he's gonna do.
And yea, Cheney should retire and I think he will...in about four more years! muahahahahaha! (although I'm not sure if I'll be able to tolerate four more years of JfZ pissing and moaning but I guess he'll just find something else to cry about with whoever wins in 2008) heh
J f Z October 19, 2004 04:53 AM PDT In 2000, candidate Bush argued vehemently against new military entanglements and nation building.
He's done both in Iraq.
Bush opposed a Homeland Security Department, then he embraced it.
Bush opposed the creation of an independent Sept. 11th commission, then he supported it.
Bush then refused to speak to the 911 commission members, then agreed only if Cheney came with him.
In August, Bush said he doubted the war on terror could be won, then reversed himself to say it could and would be won.
In September 2001, Bush wanted Osama bin Laden 'dead or alive', and 6 months later said, "I'm not that concerned with him"
Bush has changed his policy positions from political pressure on Clean Air Act restrictions, protecting the Social Security surplus, the level of assistance to combat AIDS in Africa, campaign finance reform, and whether or not to negotiate with the North Koreans.
Bush rationale for sending our young men and women to Iraq changes every time the last reason is found to be totally wrong. He's a flip-flopper of unprecedented stupidity.
So, Duke, when you tell me Bush 'is standing for something, yadda-yadda', it's sounds more than a little delusional ...
Maybe you need to De-Hannitize your mind for a few days before you vote, just to be sure you're doing your own thinking on Nov 2nd. Then vote.
And what's more, Bush neither apologizes for any of his mistakes, nor explains his flip-flopping on the issues. His level of arrogance is completely stupifying and incredibly dangerous. Anything diplomatically unsound can pop out of his mouth at any time - and does, on a daily basis during this campaign.
One Guess October 19, 2004 11:00 PM PDT You know something? You are obviously diluted by conspiracy theories that your warped mind has conceived. Let me explain this in plain English for you:
John Kerry absolutely flips and flops on all the issues concerning everything. The manís track record supports absolutely NOTHING that his lopsided rhetoric proposes.
George W. Bush did say those things in 2000. Forget about September 11th 2001? Yeah letís take off our stupid caps and think for ourselves and put our plastic.com bullshit aside as itís synthetic information anyhow. Get it, PLASTIC = synthetic = YOU, the devout believer in it, are DUPED! YOU are the laughing stock of PLASTIC as their science experiment worked and you are the product. A Raving Lunatic. Bent on your own destruction, using your own life as a model. Where are you now?. Anyhow, the attack changed the whole landscape of politics. And guess who was up for the challenge. George W. Bush. Not Mr. Tuck-my-head-between-my-legs-and-kiss-my-ass-goodbye-KERRY!
I personally have observed in the three debates, and other television appearances of BOTH Kerry and Bush, Kerry changes his mind in mid debate, mid sentence even at times. Bush, even though he stumbles with the English language sometimes, has been consistent. Those things that you pointed out that Bush flip-flops on were a matter of things needing to be refined, and when they were, he then put his signature of approval on them. OR things that were, again as you left wing nut bags like to do, take sound bites out of context. You must be in bed with Michael Moore, or at least his wet dream fantasy as you think just like the fat bastard.
Stop being so gullible to the conspiracy theories and get your head off Kerryís cock.
NOW that is a offensive post. Take that and do with it as you will. Did I get my information from Sean Hannity? Maybe his other co-conspirator Bill OíReilly, how about I got my conspiracy information from Rush Limbaugh. Yes that must be it. I have to completely rely on other men to do my thinking for me because Iím so illiterate and unable to produce any thoughts of my own. I am so glad for these men to do all that for me, Iíll just sign on the dotted line, mark my X where they want me to because they said itís good for me. No waitÖ Thatís not me Ėlaugh- THATíS YOU! YEPPERS! BUT Iím sure youíll write back with something from your rapier wit and cut me down as thatís the only defense you have. Those ďthingsĒ you post are all farts of your imagination. So go cast your vote for Scarry Kerry and Shut the F#*$ UP you whinny bitch.
J f Z October 20, 2004 12:02 AM PDT What makes you so angry and defensive? You sound like that teenage girl in the movie, "Saved" when she hurls her bible at her friend's back and screams, "I am full of Christ's love!"
BTW, I didn't conspiratorially make up those examples of Bush's 'refinements', I simply quoted them from the Orlando Sentinel newspaper. It is delusional, or hypocritical, or convenient to call Kerry a flip-flopper and Bush a 'man of his convictions' with no acknowledgement that Bush has flip-flopped or 'refined' his views also. If it'll calm you down, we could say both candidates have a record of refinement.
Your man in supposedly winning in the polls. Can't we have a discussion without the O'Reilly-level vitriol being flung about?
I just want my nephew in Afghanistan to come home in one piece. I just want to be able to breath a sigh of relief after watching 3 generations of my family fight in 5 different wars. I just want Bush to get real on why "they" hate "us" so we can move forward to fight the *real* war. <sigh> Oh yes, God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.
One Guess October 21, 2004 12:39 AM PDT -laugh-
I went to that link you left, you look really good in a bike helmet, and rightfully so, you need one. The guy that finds him, helmet boy, fascinating must be Lyly, but thatís okay. Ėheh!-
Anyhow, why so oppugnant in my retort? Simple, it works for you on how vile and vicious your posts are to and about our President. So therefore turnabout is fair play. Remember there is a time for everything under the sun. Your personal attack at Christianity is really abhorrent and a personal, let me say that again, a personal cut that runs pretty deep to your PERSONAL friends who know and love you. You make such insensitive comments about Christians and our beliefs, but worse yet youíve insulted your friends. Why? Why insult your friends? Personally I think you have a need to lord your worldly wisdom over us who have been gifted Godly wisdom, and you resent it, just like all non-Christians. Thatís okay though, Jesus told us all that these things would happen. Hereís my point: You can make statements that are much better balanced with tact and diplomacy, but you choose to ignore those things and lunge for the jugular. We still love and pray for you. Not for what WE want but what God wants for you. Okay?
In reply to you Lyly, I too have a relative overseas. My cousin. Actually he came back last week from Iraq. Heís in one piece and from his personal eye-witness account, has said that the people over there are quite happy and grateful that we liberated them from Saddam, they are concerned about an occupation, but the ones that hate us are the lunatic fringe that we call terrorists, those who plot and do what they can in their continuing jihad against us. Having a free Iraq is a brilliant strategy in this war against terrorism. Any decent strategist can see that.
Oh yeah, and you are right Lyly, God is not either democrat or republican, and neither am I. Iím conservative and I donít speak for God, I wouldnít be that stupid. However he has made his rules quite clear. We call them the Ten Commandments. As for the questions that people fling about as to who would God vote for? Personally I donít think he would. His Son is the King of Kings, and his government is perfect, but still yet to come.
Again. These are my thoughts and opinions; I know that I certainly am not the only one that shares those thoughts. Our closest friends do as well and as for the political and religious viewpoints. They are shared by the conservative right all the way to the moderate middle.
Again, God Bless,
J f Z October 21, 2004 01:41 AM PDT "Simple, it works for you on how vile and vicious your posts are to and about our President. So therefore turnabout is fair play."
I agree. That's why I don't simply delete your clumsy sermons.
"Personally I think you have a need to lord your worldly wisdom over us who have been gifted Godly wisdom, and you resent it, just like all non-Christians."
True. I experience much wailing and gnashing of teeth until I can linguistically masturbate in the general direction of a born-again christian innocently reading my blog.
"Jesus told us all that these things would happen."
I didn't read his memo the same way.
"You can make statements that are much better balanced with tact and diplomacy, but you choose to ignore those things and lunge for the jugular."
Thank you. My study of the success of FOX news anchors has finally paid off. This is 'Thunderstorms in the Imajica', NOT a 'Soothing Sprinkle for Jesus' Vegetable Garden'
"Not for what WE want but what God wants for you."
God told me to question authority, speak to power, and not allow his children to become spiritual bigots or secular sheep. Sometimes, I do what I can about that.
Pudding makes me stronger, Arrrr!
In the end, I can't put emoticons or smilies at the end of every sentence in a blog entry, and I won't. You want stupid emoticons, go to a chat room.
It's totally out of my control how anyone will react to what I write. Some people think it's funny. Some people are offended. Most people are smart enough not to read anything I blog without a shovel nearby.