With the new AP poll showing Kerry slighly ahead of Bush, it is incumbent (no pun intended) upon the President to do well tomorrow evening. Who do you think will win? I will give the advantage to the President. He knows he needs to do well, will prepare better than before, and will be rested and energized. To boot, the new jobs figures coming out tomorrow will be good news. Also, the new report on WMD's plus the Food for Oil UN scandal will help Bush. The reports show Saddam was in the process of developing WMD's and that he had secret deals with Russia and France to buy WMD's and other military hardware. Now we know why these two countries wouldn't support the U.S. in the war.
The expectations for Bush are now so low that he will benefit from almost any improvement. Even if he limits his off-camera "scowling", the Republicans will be crowing about a victory. He'll have to make do without his transmitter. Perhaps Karl Rove can hold up cue cards in the audience. Here's one: "Mumble and then tell everyone it's hard work." Come to think of it, the cue card thing is doable. He really only had two or three points in the last debate. Unfortunately, they don't know the topics ahead of time. This is bad news for Bush. Rove will have to write fast.
Sorry Tom, looks like the "bumbling idiot" (not your words) did very well in this extemporaneous setting. Kerry mumbled and stumbled. Did you hear him on the question of abortion (What did he say?) and stem cell research ("Ah, ah, ah, well, ah...").
It is interesting on how perspective skews reality. Both pretty much parroted what they said in the last debate. Kerry was the better debater, but both didn't answer a whole lot of the questions presented to them in a direct manner. I had to laugh when Bush said that his potential Supreme Court nominee's wouldn't have to pass a litmus test. The litmus test has been pretty much standard for every Bush administration (I am including his Governorship). I see the problem with Bush is that he is unable to separate his religious dogma with his duty to uphold the Constitution. Sad...
I agree with you (and Bush) that Kerry's answer on abortion was largely incomprehensible. That answer did not help him. I don't agree that Bush shined in that setting however. He had a lot of energy, but I found his answers so simplistic and lacking in understanding. It's interesting that Kerry had one convoluted answer and one instance of Bush-like aphasia (on stem cell research), and the conservatives make a big deal about that - as if Kerry was stumbling and bumbling throughout the entire debate. Generally, Kerry has been sharp as a tack in both debates. Hell, Bush has aphasia on almost ever answer. My god, his stumbling on the Supreme Court question was painful. Listening to him, I have to turn away from the tv at times, because I feel bad for him. Let's keep it in perspective, shall we?
And that's exactly why I call Bush a "bumbling idiot". It is indeed painful to watch him, and embarassing for the country and for Bush personally. One can only imagine if this is his level of articulation what goes on when the big decisions need to be made in the Cabinet. Like I've said before, he reminds me of someone who is used to being agreed with - always. He also reminds me of a kid who has gotten in way over his head, and now doesn't quite know what to do except mouth the lies that got him there in the first place. Sad, and definitely awkward. Perspective indeed. Bush is like this ALL THE TIME. Kerry stumbles once or twice, and the conservatives are like "Oh Thank God! He finally made a blunder that we can point to." As I've also said before, I am CERTAIN that in your heart of hearts, neo-cons and cons alike, you really wish you had a different candidate - like the one we (Democrats) have, at least in terms of his ability to speak intelligently and cogently on key issues. How you can still bring yourselves to deny reality and actually vote for this disaster for our country and our future is beyond me. It isn't even about politics or positions anymore - it is about simple competence to do the job, and a willingness to hear all sides of the issue, be disagreed with once in a while, and demonstrate intelligent leadership. All of these things Bush fails at miserably, yet you conservatives STILL want to vote for him. Reminds me of communists who backed their government to the end, even when they knew their policies were leading to economic ruin, destruction of their environment, and a prevention of progress on all fronts. Funny how much the right is like the left sometimes, isn't it?
Yep. Here's a link to a frightening article from the SF Chron on what the Republican party has become: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/10/RVG1T9289T1.DTL And a quote from that article which touches on Carl's comparison with the Communist: "During the Cold War, right-wingers purported to be horrified by the way Communists bowed to the iron discipline of the Party. How could people abase themselves so abjectly? Well, their own conduct would seem to answer that question. And the loyal moderates among them would do well to remember who got purged first by Communist zealots once the dust had cleared: the moderates, of course. Which is exactly what we see happening now as Republican ultraconservatives declare open season on "rhinos" (as they call moderates) in their own party. In an election year, this unfolding campaign to oust the moderates is being soft-pedaled, but it will soon return full force. Recall how Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney savaged Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords back in 2001 after a minor show of disobedience."
