I watched much of the debate, but of course, I was flipping back and forth between the debate and the Yankees. Anyway, I thought Kerry won last night's debate too. Bush did do better than the first debate. But Kerry could have done a better job of slamming Bush. I thought Kerry defended his voting record rather well, but then should have hammered Bush on his record as President. Several times Bush claimed to have a "comprehensive" plan. At one of those points, Kerry should have said something like - Mr. President, you've had four years to implement your plan, I don't think Americans want to wait four more years. - And Bush's response that he doesn't know whether or not homosexuality is a choice completely lacked any credibility for a President of the United States. I am convinced this was to satisfy the religious right who claim to believe that it is a choice. Also, I guess Bush wasn't wired, because I'm sure the "voice" would have suggested that he wipe the corner of his mouth.

Bush did try a couple of times painting Kerry as a liberal, "out of the mainstream," even more liberal than Ted Kennedy, etc. It would have been nice for Kerry to show how Bush is extreme. Better yet, Kerry had the opportunity by saying more about stem cell research when Bob Scheiffer brought the subject up, but he failed to do so.

[ October 14, 2004, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

All the polls I've seen say that Kerry won the debate last night (even the Fox News site had Kerry winning 52-46%). I just hope this translates into another boost of support for Kerry in the battleground states!

CNN did just that. Less than 5 minutes after the debate was over, there he is saying something he denied ever saying. This should be a Kerry commercial!
Bush: "Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations."
Voiceover: "But, yes, you did Mr. President."
Fade in: 1992 press conference :Fade out
Bush: "I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."
Voiceover: "Who is exaggerating now, Mr. President?"

BTW, CNN had a group of 24 undecideds last night. 10 went for Kerry, 7 for Bush...7 still don't know what to do. How can you not know what to do???

Shrub's attempts to paint Kerry as an "extreme" liberal are acts of desperation. Its too bad that Kerry couldn't have replied something like, "if anyone is extreme, it would be you. Interesting that most polls show either a dead heat, or myself with a slim lead." Like I posted yesterday he really should have replied by saying something Like, "if wanting a balanced budget, a job for anybody who wants one, if having health care for every American, if wanting the country to be strong at home and abroad is liberal, well then so be it."

I forgot to add, that I was quite disappointed that nothing about the environment came up. This is a huge issue out here to us Westerners. Kerry could have had a huge opportunity to point out that the number one worst polluted city in America, is none other than Houston, Texas.

I was very disappointed that Kerry didn't jump right on the Bush statement about getting the flu vaccine from Canada. Kerry could have said something like... Oh, you want to ban our poor elderly from getting their drugs from Canada but now you say you want to get the flu vaccines from there. Which is it going to be Mr. President? You seem very flip-flopped on this issue. wink

I too was disappointed by the lack of mention of environmental issues.

Certainly Kerry could have really NAILED Bush over that... although he himself is no great environmental activist.

Rob

Your offer (targeted at anti-W's) will probably go unaccepted since those of us here who have no respect for Bushmonkey will never sign a loyalty oath to that idiot.

Does anyone know what this means?
"not not?"

Eastsidewa - Do you think homosexuality is a choice? Just wondering...

The Gallup poll shows debate watchers thought Kerry won by 52-39. This is similar to the TKO he scored in Miami at the first debate where the numbers were 53-37.

I think Kerry has what the elder Bush called "the big 'mo." (although that does have different connotations on this site. wink )

When he mentioned big tent, I was wondering if he was peeping thru my bedroom window this morning before I woke up.

Kerry and Edwards both appear to have adopted at least one kid in the No Child Left Behind Act: Mary Cheney. What possible relevance to the questions concerning the origins of homosexuality did Kerry's gratuitous re-outing her have? He can't have been playing to the gay electorate; Bush has already squandered much of that. Why continue to invade this woman's privacy? It's a smarmy and condescending cheap shot.

But President Bush did come back at Kerry nicely when he spoke of abstinence in combatting AIDS and quipped that he understood Teresa Heinz Kerry was "involved" in that too. This one went over most peoples' heads, although Bush's quip that Kerry's relying upon "two major news organizations" for his facts was misplaced was a well-placed lob at Bob Schieffer and CBS.

However, much of the President's delivery WAS strained and awkward, as some have noted. Kerry IS the better, more polished speaker. Too bad he's so short on substance and has surrounded himself with all the wrong people. I was greatly disappointed to see Jesse Jackson identified by CSPAN after the debates as a "Senior Advisor" to the Kerry-Edwards campaign. For me, the likelihood of his reemergence alone is reason enough not to support anyone who would employ him - in ANY capacity. I wonder if their FCC filings say how much they're paying (off) this crook to campaign for them?

[ October 14, 2004, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

GM, any thoughts on Shrub's denial of his statement about Bin Laden? I'd like to hear a GOP take on this.

All I can do is give you MY take, since I'm not the GOP and don't presume to speak for "it." I think the President screwed up, but it - along with his other, similar gaffes - is not enough, in the overall scheme of things, to convince me to vote for Kerry.

So when do the misstatements stop being "gaffes" and start being "lies"? Another example is Cheney's "I never linked Saddam Hussein and 9/11" as well as his "I never met John Edwards before tonight."

Are they "gaffes" if they're spoken by the GOP but "lies" if they come from the Dems?

Andrew Sullivan's got some great things about the Mary Cheney flap:

"This woman" is a high-ranking official for the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign, who has already been "outed" by her parents, by Gwen Ifill during the VP debate, and, most importantly, through her liaison work with the GLBT community while employed at Coors. Her lesbianism has been known, and discussed in press, since the 2000 campaign, even though her mother, at least, attempted to deny her being "openly" lesbian during that campaign. Therefore, Sen. Kerry's statements can in no way be construed as a violation of privacy, any more than his reference to Christopher Reeve's disability could have been construed as a violation of his privacy.

The point, I assume, in bringing up Mary Cheney was to add a human dimension to Kerry's answer, and to point out that Pres. Bush has at least one person close to him that he could ask, vis-a-vis the "choice question."

If the mention of Mary Cheney's "lifestyle" is embarrassing to the Bush/Cheney campaign, it is only because the campaign has chosen to use gay and lesbian people as scapegoats to deflect real criticism of the administration's failures. That is no fault of Senator Kerry's and cannot be blamed on him.

Elizabeth Edwards also has it right:

ELIZABETH EDWARDS ON ABC RADIO: "[Lynne Cheney] overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences… It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."

This was in response to:

LYNNE CHENEY AT POST-DEBATE RALLY: "The only thing I could conclude is that this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I'm speaking as a mom. And a pretty indignant one. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

Another interesting quote from Andrew Sullivan:

It's smarmy and condescending to talk about someone being gay? Openly gay for many years, I might add, as talked about by her father. You sound like one of those tabloid shows that talk about "vicious rumors" that a celebrity might be gay. Smarmy, indeed.

The relevance is that it personalizes the issue for millions of Americans who think they don't know any gay people, and it points out the hypocricy of the Bush campaign using gay people as a divisive political tool to get re-elected.

The reason we don't see Mary Cheney (or her partner) at many of her father's events (like the Republican Convention) is that they want bigoted America to forget about her since most news commentators will usually say, "...and there on the stage is the vice president's daughter and her partner...". Keeping her shoved out of sight is the one thibg they want to do.

I think Kerry and Edwards ARE using Mary as a political tool...to expose the hatred and bigotry found in the Republican party. And who can say that is a bad thing to do?

First, on Mary Cheney. There is SUCH a double standard and sadly even GLBT people sometimes seem to have it. In Debate #1 when Kerry referred to his respect and admiration for Laura Bush, who is known only because she is married to a prominent politician, was that a low blow? Of course not. Why is it a low blow to refer to a family member who is not straight? I think because gays and lesbians are identified in the public eye as solely made up of sex. If you refer to a straight spouse, generally it is not a sexual reference. After all, straight couples go to movies, walk the dog, buy groceries, argue about finances, raise children, cooperate in political ventures, etc etc but mention anyone gay and someone claims you're talking about sex, even if all you are saying is that you and your partner went to a baseball game.
Now, for what I intended to say. I found Bush to be frighteningly out of touch with working people's reality. To questions about minimum wage, women's unequal pay, unemployment, outsourceing, he kept talking about "no child left behind" (hey, I'm 50, how do standards in elementary school help my employability?) and about community colleges. He is apparently unaware that many many people with college degrees and "21st century skills" have lost jobs in the computer industry and to a lesser degree in the biotech industry. I'm not unemployed but on the verge. His solution is for me to go to a community college and then find an entry level job somewhere? He also seems unaware of the fact that community colleges are underfunded and overcrowded; many students cannot get the classes they need. In California until this year the pledge of the state university system was to admit all qualified students, maybe not to their first choice but to one of the UC's or state U's. That is no longer the case; they are being told to enroll in cc for 2 years which further overcrowds them. We can disagree on the solution but anyone who has followed the news in recent years should know about thousands of educated workers, many in mid-life, laid off.
He also mentioned no child left behind stressing science and math which is factually untrue. Math is included by science is not; as a result, many schools are cutting what minimal science programs they had since all school programs must be correlated to the testing. No science testing = no science; as a biologist this is a matter of great concern to me.
To be fair, Kerry also showed lack of reality. Let his family try living on $7 an hour in the Bay Area. And he uses the fake term "partial birth abortion", a term that has no medical meaning but was invented (along with a gruesome but untrue description) by opponents of legal abortion. Why not say the facts, that late term abortions are undergone by women who learned in the 7th and 8th month that their wanted pregnancies have gone tragically wrong?
I was disappointed on the ignoring of environmental issues as well as on voting rights issues.

Lynne Cheney should talk about "bad m[e]n"; the monster she's married to pushed to have this disastrous war in which over 1,000 American soldiers have been killed, at least six times that number have been maimed or injured, and thousands of Iraqi lives have been lost--thousands of INNOCENT Iraqi lives. What "culture of life" is this? Didn't W claim last night that he believed in respect from birth on? So what about the troops? The Iraqi innocents? And for what? A PACK OF LIES ABOUT WMDs, Saddam's links to Al Qaeda, and whatever bs claims they've come up with since the first two fell through!

As for Dick Cheney's bulldyke daughter, I'm glad Kerry and Edwards both mentioned her. Gay people are not an abstraction, not monsters, not the gross threats that creeps like W claim we are. Mary Cheney is a REAL person--she'd be as affected by W's laws as any of the abstract queer straw men these hateful psychos are using to scare people. W talks about tolerance in one half-breath, them out of that crooked, spit-cornered mouth comes his hateful desire to amend the Constitution. Jesse Jackson my ass! I'll take anyone Kerry's got in his camp over the hateful, anti-American, pro-W fanatics like Robertson and Falwell who, in essence, sided with the Islamic fanatics in blaming gays and lesbians, among others, for 9/11. BTw, isn't Robertson still pimping African lives to get his gemstones out of those war-torn countries? How Christian is THAT?

I also wanted to hear more about the environment, but that came up really only in Debate #2. Kerry's record, while not Gore's, is certainly better than W's Orwellianly-tinged programs, which have only increased overall environmental degradation, a few successes notwithstanding.

As far as that $7 goes, while it would do little to help working-class people in the Bay Area, it would mean a GREAT DEAL to people in many other parts of the country. It shocks me how callous so many people can be about what it takes to get by in this country. Everything is going up--regular gas is $2.15 in Chicago!--and for a working-class family, the difference between one spouse making $5 vs. $7 (or more) is tremendous. Also, Princeton economists have shown that raising the minimum wage doesn't automatically mean destroying small businesses, particularly when other pro-business tax incentives and medical care cost adjustments are factored in. I was VERY glad Kerry made his point on this topic last night. It would directly affect millions of people, particularly women.

[ October 14, 2004, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Another point that Kerry has made before that really hits home with me, is that Shrub didn't fund or cutout or both the 100,000 extra policeman, which we added on under Clinton. I think it was 100,000, not a million, but anyway today the Mayor of Spokane is going to have to come up with creative ways to chop $10 Million dollars out of our city budget. They are talking of laying off 20-40 Policemen, and maybe 30-40 Firemen. Woe be Spokane. So much for having our first responders fully staffed and ready. Thanks Bush for cutting everything to the bone. All you care about is your stupid tax cuts for the wealthy, but at what cost? My city budget, that's what! :mad:

[ October 14, 2004, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

In a new AOL poll for AOL users, with about 400,000 votes, the race is 50% to 50%. Usually these polls run more in favor on the Republican side, but not always.

An AOL Poll? You shitting me? AOL?

Thats pretty scientific

Probably will get nailed by this but don't ya think it's a little disrepectful to refer to the President of the United States as "Shrub"? I may not agree with him but I am sure we can have civil discussions about the presidential race without that. What would we think if threads were posted referring to Kerry as "Botox-Face" or something along those lines.

Let's jusr raise the minimum wage to 10 an hour, then when the working class folks have to pay 8 dollars for their super sized french fries you can complain about how they cant afford to pay for it.

Proob some mean nasty republican... instead of some commie pinko..

tally ho

Could someone please post some quotes of righteous indignation by Lynne Cheney after Alan Keyes called Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist? I can't seem to find any.

Maybe gmginsfo has them handy?

CNN's poll question is [QUOTE]Do you think Sen. John Kerry went too far when he mentioned VP Dick Cheney's gay daughter in Wednesday's
debate?/QUOTE]

With 38,841 votes, the current vote is 35% YES - 65% NO. Go and vote! CNN

You haven't been reading these boards long, I guess. "Shrub" is nothing (besides, it's a play on his name and on being a president's son, and it's used by pretty much everyone) compared to all of the other names used here.

Personally, as a life long, registered, card carrying Republican until I left the party last year (After 24 years); Shrub is the least contemptuous of the things I could think to call our current chief administrator.

I voted for, Reagan, Bush Sr, and pretty much a straight party ticket for years.

I can not think of a current national politician for whom I hold more contempt, and less sympathy.

'Shrub' shorthands the ten minutes of obscene vitrolic invective with which I might otherwise label him.

In such a case, I feel 'Shrub' is about as civil and humorous as I can be.

I am not a huge Kerry Fan - as a matter of fact I have never in my life had the pleasure of voting for any P Candidate whom I liked, respected, and thought was honest. I have always been forced to vote for the lesser of evils in my opinion.

However I have never voted against anyone with the supreme relish I will in voting against Shrub.

Rob

[ October 15, 2004, 05:14 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Yeah, you tell 'em gmg, how dare anyone out Mary Cheney.

Dick Cheney, August 24, 2004:
"Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue that our family is very familiar with. . . . "

We on the Left usually like to refer to him in primate terms. My choice is usually Bushmonkey.

Actually folks on here already do refer to Kerry in such terms, in fact PF started a thread calling him "Lurch". The name calling is silly, but it has always hapened when talking politics.

bobby -
I keep telling you that is insulting, unfair, degrading, and prejudicial.

There are a lot of kind decent, gentle monkeys and primates of all kinds, out there who do not deserve your scorn or abuse. Monkeys are gentle, quiet, unusually intelligent and perceptive creatures. None of those things apply to Shrub.

:cool: Rob

[ October 15, 2004, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Like KoKo, that monkey that can do sign language...KoKo, that chimps alright.

Please, Shrub is harmless. Don't forget I have heard Kerry referred to as "Frankenkerry".

But don't you realize, Hornfan, that it's okay to call Mary a "selfish hedonist" - what is wrong is suggesting that she might be out of step with the "Christian" right and believe that her sexuality is an innate characteristic.

The Bush/Cheney campaign allows certain expressions of support for Mary from her family - but only as long as it sounds like they are not fully accepting of her - that they are not rejecting her for being gay, but never suggesting that they think being gay is okay. Kerry messed that up by explicitly saying the truth - gay people tend to believe we are okay people, and don't need to be fixed. That is a message completely in contrast to a party platform that claims gay people threaten society if our relationships are recognized AT ALL, and a campaign that has been using gay-bashing literature in both West Virginia and Arkansas (claiming that a Kerry presidency will mean a ban on the bible and gay marriage in all states).

Not to mention the campaign has to do something to deflect the talking heads from discussing how poorly he performed in all three debates, how inconsistently his image was, how clearly managed he is. This is Rove's best shot, and it's pretty damn sad.

An interesting view of the debates from the Village Voice
Pre-Election Debates and Family Feud

I also did not see any outrage from VP & Lynne Cheney during the senate debate on the anti-marriage amendment. Various senators of their party were making the most despicable (and false) statements about gays and lesbians imaginable. No, I could not imagine those things. Did either Cheney say, wait, this is our child you are taking about? But call her "god's child" and you're a bad person!
I don't know what Kerry's motives were, whether pure or devious. I'm not in his head. I personally found the comment unobjectionable and not really very noticeable in the context of the whole debate.

After the debate Lynn Chaney launched into a tirade about Kerry's use of her Daughter Mary's name in response to a question about gays being born gay. At the time I saw nothing offensive wiht the comment and I thought it was appropriate since it has been a part of the election from early on. I was PISSED at Lynne Cheney and then Dick Cheney for their idiotic remarks. Why are they idiotic? It's because the same two people did not raise their voices when Allen (sp) Keys spoke during the Republican National Convention and called Mary Cheney by name and said she is a heathen and self hating among other nice things said about homosexuals in general. I guess that since neither Dick nor Lynne said anything about that, they must be in agreement! What a bunch of Hypocrits!!! Lynne deserved to get called out by Patricia Hines-Kerry who said Lynne must have some guilt about her parenting to respond the way she did. I personally think the whole backlash was just political shenanegans that were poorly thought out! SHAME, SHAME!

Bush got completely trounced again, for Christ-sake. They had to divert attention from that somehow. That is a family of snakes and I'm afraid I'd be hard pressed not to trip miss Mary if I saw her on the street. She's as complicent in the whole thing as her slimy mother and father. Can't wait till they are GONE!!!!!

By the way...Perhaps Keyes was right about little miss Cheney, even though he was completely wrong about every other gay person on the planet.

[ October 15, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: gobar ]

I think we need to resurrect the Coors boycott that Mary greased the skids on as an out Lesbian.

She must be "all about the money", lying in the grass waiting for the all-mighty dollar. Just like the rest of her hateful family.

Bobby: You know I'm gonna to give you my W inaugral invite. I'll even give a AA frequent flyer mileage coupon for the round trip. I'll personally walk them over to you. wink wink
That's the only way you'll see the WH. Until Hillary runs in 2008.

Hilary Rosen pretty much sums it all up in her "Outrage That Rings False" piece.

False Outrage

Rosen's right on.

But let's see. The people will decide this election, GOP dirty tricks and the hypocritical molester-protecting Catholic hierarchy notwithstanding. Calling an out lesbian a "lesbian," claiming that someone whose record is less liberal than a good ten other US Senators (including BOTH from New Jersey), and other such nonsense isn't going to work in the long run. Why?

• --Iraq is not improving; American soldiers continue to die (6 alone yesterday), even the once-secure \"Green Zone\" has been penetrated, the US is bombing innocent Iraqis even more indiscriminately in the hope of killing *one* of the insurgent leaders, and a US platoon just mutinied.
• --The economy sputters along.
• --Energy costs, especially gas costs, are steadily rising, especially in some of the swing states, and Prince Bandar or whomever appears incapable of fulfilling his promise to help W. (It starts to get damned cold in Ohio and Pennsylvania and New Hampshire and West Virginia and Wisconsin in late October.)
• --Health care costs are steadily rising.
• --And creating government bureaucratic jobs isn't sufficient to turn the job-loss problem around.

This man has left the entire country in the same sort of mess he created in Texas.

So W really had better pray that people remain dazed and confused and incapable of focusing on the larger picture of his complete ineptitude on every issue out there, with perhaps the sole exception of improving relations with the former Soviet Bloc countries.

[ October 16, 2004, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]