Kerry's Cleaning Bush's Clock Again

[RBS]

Just because Bush is speaking louder, doesn't mean he's any better.

Knockout by Kerry in 3.

[Monte Smith]

I will admit that when faced with a question about a possible draft (floated by Democrat Congressman and liberal 527s), I wish my candidate would not refer to "rumors on the internets."

Ay God, why?

[bobetterblues]

It must be hard to type the words "my candidate" for a guy like you Monte.

*ahem*

I hope you are praying to the good lord for forgiveness.

[Monte Smith]

Hell no, bo. There's the Carter Kennedy Clinton clone Kerry and then there is my candidate. And then there's Nader, I guess. I can type all that real easy.

[bobetterblues]

I knew it was difficult....good to know I was right.

[Monte Smith]

Uh oh! Kerry just was asked to "look in the camera's eye" and swear off any new taxes on families earning less than $200,000 a year (which is a lot) and he did it. It's "read my lips" and "I did not have sex with that woman" all over again. If Kerry wins in 2004, this video byte could spell his doom in 2008.

[RBS]

"Uh, ya need some wood?"

Hmmm.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by RBS

"Uh, ya need some wood?"

Now that one was funny.

[Vince Kargatis]

copied from another thread:
(at beginning)
For some reason, I hear the "tonal success" of the candidates as opposite of the first (where I thought Bush dominated stylistically) - here Kerry sounds more confident off the bat.

...later...

Gotta mention Kerry's one killer zinger - when he said if Missouri was a country in the coalition, it would be the third largest contributor of troops. Zing! Dunno if it's true, but ouch!

...

Kerry really dropped the ball in the last response, he coulda spent 90 full seconds just ripping the disastrous post-war handling.

Kerry's closing is snoresville, "plan plan plan" erk. But I give it to him stylistically overall, opposite my impression from the first debate (which happened to be opposite the CW, so I'm not such a great predictor).

(Little need to talk about the substance of these two bozos...)

[sonic1]

Kerry missed one:

When Bush was asked to list 3 mistakes, he could hardly mention even one, "I wish I didn't appoint certain people, but don't wanna go into that" (paraphrased).

Why didn't Kerry HAMMER him for not being able to mention one mistake. Bush spent that whole question defending himself, not admitting any mistake. He STILL cannot admit any mistakes.

Kerry might have done a slightly better job, but he could have taken it home if he was on the ball a little more. There were other times I was yelling at the TV because Kerry was missing some good shots.

Oh well, at least we have Bush to incriminate himself!

Kerry also could have said what he said about middle class taxes a little clearer. He was asked to say it in a few clear words and he rambled. I don't think he will raise taxes on middle class, but he is almost as long winded as me! Get to the point mother fucker!

I know others here will bash Bush, so I will let them do it. But I don't think Bush did too well tonight. I will just say that he can't admit mistakes. He has no humility and he is the best buck passer I have ever seen.

Jared

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Hell no, bo. There's the Carter Kennedy Clinton clone Kerry and then there is my candidate. And then there's Nader, I guess. I can type all that real easy.

hewww boy.

oh kay there monte. You can have your boy...

[crawjo]

I thought Bush dodged that question nicely. What do you suppose Kerry's answer would have been if he had had to list three mistakes in his voting record? It would have been a defense of his voting record, and then blaming the administration for misusing the Patriot Act, etc. etc. etc.

[sonic1]

I think the ability Kerry shows in having the ability to change his mind and to decide something doesn't work, and change it.

Bush resists reform, he resisted the 9-11 commission (probably for fear that he would be incriminated), he has never been able to admit he fucked up and I think a lot of us agree he has many things he could have admitted he fucked up on.

I don't know that Kerry would be quite the angel, and that he probably like any politition would dodge having to admit mistakes. But would he do it with such arrogance and swaggart?

[crawjo]

No, I was just talking about the debate question. It's the type of question that I don't think any candidate for president in recent memory would have answered candidly. These campaigns are run so much on spin and "talking points" that any question like that will just get flipped around as a means for making a different point or attacking the other guy.

When the question was asked, I figured that Bush would just totally not answer. I thought it was a nice evasion to say that he had made mistakes with three appointments, but he didn't want to embarrass them on national tv. It's not a forthright answer, of course, but I don't think either candidate would answer such a question forthrightly.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by crawjo

No, I was just talking about the debate question. It's the type of question that I don't think any candidate for president in recent memory would have answered candidly. These campaigns are run so much on spin and "talking points" that any question like that will just get flipped around as a means for making a different point or attacking the other guy.

When the question was asked, I figured that Bush would just totally not answer. I thought it was a nice evasion to say that he had made mistakes with three appointments, but he didn't want to embarrass them on national tv. It's not a forthright answer, of course, but I don't think either candidate would answer such a question forthrightly.

This administration is infamous for its arrogance, which is why that question was asked. He actually would probably win points if he could admit SOMETHING. He didn't even finish his sentence regarding the appointments he regretted, and that answer is still passing the buck: read: I regret that other people made mistakes.

And the look on the face of the woman that asked the question did not suggest he evaded it. He could barely look back at her.

Of course the same was true when Kerry answered the pro-lifer. But at least he didn't pander his stance on choice away.

[Ellery Eskelin]

Bush handled himself better this time but...he was largely on the defensive, didn't offer much hope beyond a rosy scenario of the present that I don't think even his staunchest supporters really believe and to my mind remains particularly vulnerable on domestic issues. The next debate should offer Kerry's his opportunity to finish the job.

And was it me or did Bush call Kerry "Senator Kennedy" at one point?

[crawjo]

I haven't heard Bush ever refer to Kerry by name. Tonight, I did, however, hear Peter Jennings refer to Kerry as Senator Kennedy. Were you watching ABC?

[Ellery Eskelin]

I watched on PBS and I'd be willing to bet money that Bush said "Senator Kennedy". I flipped through the other channels for the post debate spin and I heard Jennings say it too.

EDIT: I found it in the transcript posted at the New york Times:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Let me see where to start here. First, the National Journal named Senator Kennedy (sic) the most liberal senator of all, and that's saying something in that bunch. You might say that took a lot of hard work.

[BFrank]

I remember that "Kennedy" remark, now. I thought he WAS referring to Senator Kennedy!

Silly me!

Senator Kennedy (sic)

[Jazzooo]

Yes, Bush mistakenly referred to Kerry as Kennedy. Or, if you prefer, Bush 'mistakenly' referred to Kerry as Kennedy.

Where are the other internets Bush referred to? I want to check out the jazz boards on those! Maybe I can sell a few CDs...

I agree that Bush could have gained some decent ground had he admitted to something--anything, really--in his response to that last question. But of course, he can't ever admit to doing anything wrong. As for his response, talk about smarmy!

I thought Kerry missed some good opportunities. I felt the evening was starting to look like a draw (and these things are too fucking long--they say everything they have to say in the first 15 minutes, and the rest is repetition). But Bush yelled an awful lot and it got pretty aggravating. I wonder how the people sitting in front of him felt. I'd give Kerry the win, but not by too much.

One thing, though--Bush's fear-inspiring comments about buying drugs through Canada is dipshit ignorant. I did mucho work for pharamceutical clients in the 80s and 90s and actually made some very strong personal relationships with upper management of our clients, from the exec VP of the division to the directors of business units and their product managers. None of them would deny that the main reason they oppose this scheme is the loss of the difference in their profit margins--we can get drugs cheaper in Canada because they SELL them to Canada for less, period. Same drugs, smae companies, same factories--hell, I was told that some of their domestic generic competitors actually manaufacture their products in the exact same factories (mostly in Puerto Rico)!

Fear mongering about potential bad quality drugs if you buy a) generics or b) from Canada is a trick that drug companies use. They can't print fliers about it, but they can leak stuff through their sales reps to docs and pharmacists behind closed doors. I've actually seen some of it, though I never participated in any of it.

it was a bullshit response. Pharmas are huge contributors to republican candidates, and even though most of our top mangement buddies were closet democrats, they held their nose and voted republican in every election, in the hopes that the repubs would help them hang on to their profit margins.

And I have sympathy for them too--it's extremely exxp[ensive to bring a new drug to market, and they know that the countdown to generic competition starts long before the first new pill hits the shelves. They have a limited amount of time to make back as much as they can, and they do everything possible to maximize the opportunities.

[Jazzooo]

By the way, I suspect that factcheckers will embarrass Bush tomorrow about the lumber thing. I'm pretty sure I heard that he reported income from a lumber company in his 2001 tax returns.

[BFrank]

[crawjo]

Andrew Sullivan already fact-checked it. He recorded profits from a lumber company in the various years, but we're only talking about less than $1,000 income a year. So it's a gaffe, but not a significant one, IMO.

[Root Doctor]

The debate seemed like a draw to me. Both Kerry and Jack Van Impe were well-prepared and articulate.

[frankiepop]

Yes, Bush mistakenly referred to Kerry as Kennedy. Or, if you prefer, Bush 'mistakenly' referred to Kerry as Kennedy.

i do that sometimes...just to piss off gg.

[Bluebrew]

Got wood?

[Jim Dye]

Originally Posted by Root Doctor

The debate seemed like a draw to me. Both Kerry and Jack Van Impe were well-prepared and articulate.

Curious. I didn't see Rexella come out on the stage after the debate ended.

[Gentle Giant]

I know that Bush's handlers drummed into him that he shouldn't grimace. But there were a couple of times when the camera focused on him while listening to Kerry, and the guy just couldn't stop blinking his eyes. I had the impression that if he didn't grimace soon his whole head would explore.

[lynn]

Blinking and eye twitching. I laughed through at least half of the debate it was so obvious. I wonder if they ever considered Botox after last week?

And the lumber thing is a big deal. Half of the small personal businesses Bush keeps quoting in his tax facts are just like these. ( I need to recheck but I think the numbers are something like 400,000 of the 800,000 small businesses he keeps quoting that would be affected by the tax cut rollback on incomes greater than $200K) The numbers are inflated to scare the general population.