From the Democratic Party

Subject: Debate Alert: Print this Email!

Tonight, don't let George Bush's henchmen steal another victory. We need
your online help immediately after the debate, so save this email, print
it out, and have it ready with you as you watch the first Presidential
debate tonight.

We all know what happened in 2000. Al Gore won the first debate on the
issues, but Republicans stole the post-debate spin. We are not going to
let that happen again, and you will play a big role.

Immediately after the debate, we need you to do three things: vote in
online polls, write a letter to the editor, and call in to talk radio
programs. Your 10 minutes of activism following the debate can make the
difference.

Vote

National and local news organizations will be conducting online polls
during and after the debate asking for readers' opinions. Look for
online polls at these national news websites, and make sure to vote in
every one of them:

ABC News: http://www.abcnews.com/
CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.com/
USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/

And be sure to check the websites of your local newspapers and TV
stations for online polls. It is crucial that you do this in the minutes
immediately following the debate.

Write

Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the
editor of your local paper. If you feel John Kerry commanded the debate
and had a clear plan for fixing the mess in Iraq, put it in your letter.
If you feel George Bush dodged tough questions on Iraq and didn't level
with voters, put it in your letter.

With just a few clicks, you can write your letter at our online media
center:

http://www.democrats.org/media/

Call

Do you listen to national or local call-in shows on the radio? How
about on TV? Call them and let them know what you thought of John
Kerry's plan to keep America secure and George Bush's continuing refusal
to admit the truth about his record.

Here are some national shows to get you started. (All times are
Eastern.)

Air America (all day): 646-274-2346
Alan Colmes (10 a.m. to 1 p.m.): 212-301-5900
Ed Shultz (3 p.m. to 6 p.m.): 701-232-1525
Bev Smith (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.): 412-325-4197
Doug Stephen (5 a.m. 10 a.m.): 1-800-510-8255
Find shows in your area on our media website:

http://www.democrats.org/media/find.html

Your actions immediately after the debate tonight can help John Kerry
win on November 2. Make your voice heard!

Don't forget to visit our 2004 Debate Center before, during, and after
the debate for important information, including questions Bush must
answer, a Bush/Kerry contrast on keeping America safe, and Bush Debate
Bingo, a game you can play with friends during the debate.

http://www.democrats.org/debates/

Bush is getting fucked up so far, 9:17 PM EST.

Not too many Bush supporters are going to post here tonight, I think that they are somewhat demoralized by the debate and are now worried about the election.

Bush looked like he was sucking lemons all night, except when he was smirking.

I'm watching the Bush damage control on FOX News, even these guys are admitting that Bush was weak. They keep saying that foreign policy, the topic of tonight's debate, is the Bush strong point.

The Bush writers must have taken the night off last night. He kept repeating the same lines over and over again. Ran out of material shortly after his opening statement.

This guy is truly intellectually challenged. An original thought would die in his head as it would never be recognized. Scary to think he is out president and that he is still ahead in the polls. Anyone with an open mind saw the clear difference between the two men tonight.

All the interviews I have seen with the reactions of the " undecided voters " has been overwhelmingly pro Kerry. I was beginning to think we were doomed to 4 more years of the autocracy of the Bush inner circle. Now I believe there is hope he has been outed .

I was able to listen to the first 50 min. of the debate, and as a Bush supporter I have to say that Kerry did win the debate. He is a much MUCH better talker, he is real smooth with his speach.

The President Bush tends to see things as black and white, right or wrong, good or bad, and thats the way he comes across.

Sen. Kerry reminds me of a used car salesman, and as I have learned when you deal with a slick talker you should make sure you have something in writing.

How can you support a guy who sees things as black or white, good or bad, right or wrong. Nothing works like that . It is that kind of concrete thinking that got us into the mess that is Iraq.

If he gets a chance at 4 more years I shudder to think what his lack of flexibility will get us involved in.

I was honestly surprised the Bush people agreed to three debates. I would have guessed the Kerry people wanted three, the Bush people wanted one and they would have split the difference and agreed on two. Kerry throwing down the gauntlet about weekly debates earlier is probably what led to three instead of two, although maybe they just both agreed on the commissions’ recommendation of three.

Tonight is a perfect example of why Bush's people try to isolate and shield him from situations like this. Kind of like when Bush couldn't explain what sovereignty was and sounded like Adam Sandler in Billy Madison. It is because he just isn't very smart or articulate. He simply cannot think on his feet very well. Anytime he tries gibberish just comes out of his mouth and he doesn't make any sense. He is very good at repeating RNC talking points about Kerry though!

He'll probably do better in the town hall format (since it is less formal) before the final debate which will be like tonight. Bush is at his best like he was with his arm around the firefighter post 9-11 (with the bullhorn in hand at ground zero) and when he has a prepared speech. Anytime he has to actually THINK about something or is asked a question he is unprepared for he comes off as bumbling fool. Anyone who can’t say “nuclear” probably should not have their finger on the trigger to America’s nuclear arsenal.

Um, yeah, well, um, hmmm, yeah, ummmm, well....

How many times did you hear that tonight from Bush? That and the stupid, confused and annoyed smirk he had on his face explain why the campaigns didn't want the networks to show a split screen. Thank goodness they were not bound by the agreement the candidates signed. Who looked more Presidential tonight? It certainly wasn't Bush.

I doubt this will have too much influence on the race though. Polls consistently show Bush is thought of as a better leader, but I cannot (and I am obviously a homer for Kerry) believe how anyone after watching the debate tonight can think of Bush as a strong and decisive leader. He looked weak and tentative and on the defensive.

Onto the issues, again being a Kerry homer, I thought Kerry did a fairly good job of explaining his points in a clear and articulate matter. I thought Bush was simply killing time because he couldn’t think of things to say. I also would have liked to see Jim Lehrer say no to Bush once or twice every time Bush wanted to get in a 30 second extension, but there was probably no way Lehrer was going to say no to the President in that situation.


(Message edited by xenono on September 30, 2004)

I have to say that Kerry missed some chances, instead of sitting back and letting Bush quote him out of context over and over, he could have dished out some Bush flip flops, like the "Osama is enemy one" and then later "Oh, we don't really need to find Osama", and then make the statement that 'anyone can take any comment out of context' and that would have ended that.

I hope this debate woke some people up

I was disappointed that the debate focused solely on the war on terror. There was very little talk of its effects here. Kerry brought up a little on tax cuts and a failing infrastructure. Kerry should have spelled out what 200 billion dollars could have done here.

I did not like the questions as they seemed to enable both candidates to repeat themselves. I would imagine the other two subsequent debates will have more questions than just the war on terror.

That should be sending alarm bells around the bush camp. The popular view seems to say Kerry won round one and the war on terror is supposed to be Bush's strong suit. Did anyone else laugh when Bush named Poland second to the UK as part of the coalition?

Kerry needs to be a little less civil, he passed up too many opportunities to shove dubya's bullshit right back in his face. Did the Bush Administration care about YOUR civil rights when they passed the Patriot Act? Did the Bush Administration care about YOUR military when they sent them into Iraq undermanned and underequipped? Did the Bush Administration care about world opinion before they went into Iraq?

This Bush Administration does not hesitate to go for the balls when they are met with any disagreement. Bush would go for Kerrys nuts in a heartbeat if he had something the American people would also agree with. What words did Bush use more last night, 'mission accomplished' or 'hopefully'?

We are a year and a half since Iraq invasion and we need to say democracy has reached Iraq and not hopefully democracy has reached Iraq. Even conservatives don't say hopefully we will find wmd in Iraq anymore.

On that wmd note, who here on Sept 11, 2001, came to a conclusion that we need bring democracy to the Iraqi people? The spin can just be too too much.

One more thing, who would love to see the notes each of the candidates were writing during the debates? Dubya's probably had a smily face or two.

That is the big thing. I cringe every time I hear Bush talk about "bringing freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan" and admonishing Putin in Russia (like he did last night) for limiting check and balances in his government.

While Bush is spouting off about "bringing freedom to other countries," his own Justice Department is going to appeal a Federal judges’ ruling on the Patriot Act. The part of the Patriot Act that was struck down just a few days ago allowed the FBI to force certain businesses to hand over customer records without a judge's approval and without telling anyone.

So what? Checks and balances are good enough for Russia, but aren't good enough for the US' citizens? How can he admonish Putin and do it with a straight face? It just absolutely and totally amazes me. How can he possibly say that the FBI forcing businesses to turn over records on customers without first getting a court order and then gagging them FROM EVER talking about it doesn’t violate the first and fourth amendment? How can someone who has sworn to uphold the constitution so blatantly spit on it? It is ridiculous.

I was so glad Kerry called out Bush on the “they attacked us” comment when referring to Iraq. He had Bush reeling and Bush again came off as dumb and had to force Lehrer into a 30 second rebuttal so he could say, “I know it was Osama bin Laden” that attacked us.

The problem with the Patriot Act was not all necessarily Bush’s. But his calls for its renewal are alarming. It was passed very hastily and with little debate by Congress in the aftermath of 9-11. The Justice Department essentially gave Congress a laundry list of things they wanted and Congress cashed them a blank check.

Most of its provisions are set to expire thanks to some foresight by Congress. The problem now is that Bush wants most of the provisions either renewed or expanded PERMANTELY. Thankfully, some people are finally stepping up to the plate (from both sides of the aisle) and actually asking some questions about how the act is being used. Ashcroft blatantly lied to Congress and told them at the time it was only going to be used to go after terrorists, but Ashcroft is using it to go after every day common criminals and even holding seminars on how to use the Patriot Act against US citizens.

http://www.satelliteguys.us/archive/index.php/t-467.html

(This is an archived Yahoo! News story)

And then if Bush can’t get what he wants through Congress (Patriot Act II), he just attaches it to an intelligence spending bill that is considered "must pass" legislation because it funds intelligence services. The appropiations bill is written in secret and passed without debate:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61341,00.html

I'm with Stupid

Just want to say I'm one of those millions of fat, lazy, ignorant, SUV-drivin' Americans that knows you're supposed to say "nucular" not nuclear. That's why I can relate to Bushie. He doesn't intimidate me with that intelligent talk like Kerry. Deep inside, I believe that the ultimate American Dream is to become the trust-fund Daddy's Boy. C'mon people, we all relate to the kegger-lovin' frat guy better than the earnest A student (i.e., geeks like Kerry) As long as some poor black, hispanic, & white-trash suckers are putting their lives on the line defending my freedoms out there in those weird foreign countries I don't understand (much less pronounce), it's all good ;-)

And if you don't agree with me, get the hell out of this country. You're unAmerican and can't admit that we're betterer than everybody else!!

But seriously folks, I was laughing so hard when some CNN pundit was explaining that people like Bush more because they can relate to him betterer, oops I mean better, than Kerry. I personally believe that in democratic societies like ours, the people get the leaders they deserve about 75% of the time (which is a pretty good stat if you think about it). So if you're concerned about the economic and foreign-policy quagmires we currently find ourselves stuck in, don't blame the leadership, blame your next door neighbor!!

"I see stupid people. There all around me"

That should be:

"I see stupid people. They're all around me"

Sorry, don't want to be attacked with "pot calling the kettle black"

Did Kerry win the debate? He sure did.
Is Kerry a great speaker and a great debater? He sure damn is.
Is Kerry well intentioned? He is.
More carismatic? Sure.
Can he run a country just on these attributes? NO WAY MAN.
If you guys want to put this guy in the white house, go ahead and do it man.
Just before you go out and vote for him, Look at what is happening here in Mexico.
We put a real good carismatic speaker in command and our country is falling into pieces.
Vincente Fox is also well intended, but is very naive when it comes to the reality of situations.
Kerry sounds and looks like this.
Kerry is very naive on everything.
He thinks he can come in and control every single issue better than the Bush administracion.
Get over this "Kerry Hollywood Liberal Cloud" and choose the man that has been there through the good and the bad and let Kerry continue enjoying his wife's money.

Oh, absolutely.

Kerry is almost as much as a Beta male as Bush (in my book anyway).

Like I said, most democratic countries get the leadership they deserve most of the time. Fox speaks VOLUMES on the character of the Mexican nation. Not as many volumes with Bush, but hey nobody's perfect. . .

"Vincente Fox is also well intended, but is very naive when it comes to the reality of situations"

Not sure what you're trying to say here. . . replace Fox with Dubya and the sentence still makes sense. . .

Oh, BTW, got any mongering / vacation plans in Iraq down the pike, I heard the democracy thing is really picking up there lately. . .

". . .choose the man that has been there through the good and the bad and let Kerry continue enjoying his wife's money."

ummm, what good was that again?
Don't know about you guys but when you have a lousy stock, YOU SELL before it goes even further down the toilet. When a company's senior execs start fouling things up, what does the Managing Board do? I know who I'm voting for.

Another thing about Kerry which is why I respect him just a smidgen more than Bushie, I think he's got the mind of a mongerer at heart. Can you imagine Bush mongering? Didn't think so, lol! Even a newbie ho' would take him to the cleaners. At least Kerry is enough of a player to marry and bullshit his way to wealth and power. I think Bush had to rely more on Daddy for that. . .

Kerry was rich before he married hienz, I dont think my lifestyle will change much either way ,Life will still go on If I am lucky , and living is a good thing.

But george Bush Is a Joke , He isnt stupid ,he knows what he is doing . The people are stupid Id say about 65% of the country doesnt even understand half of what they were talking about last night , through no fault of their own they are told what to think by their TV's. If people were better informed there would be a revolution.

As an American I for one am embarrased , I mean even in a fake Democracy these 2 chumps were the best our owners could come up with?

Good points Larry.

I have no loyalty to either party, I would vote Republican or Democrat as long as I believe the candidate possesses the Alpha-male qualities that I personally respect: strength WITH intelligence, flexible when he needs to be AND stubborn when the situation calls for it. There are MANY Republicans out there that are more qualified to lead the nation than Our Guy. Heck, even "Ahhnold" speaks better English than Dubya! McCain, for starters, would have my vote. (Despite his hugging Bush in a recent rally; we have to forgive one or two moments of weakness in all our capable politicians. Some humiliation and soul-selling is necessary in order to get ahead, etc.)

Of course, I'm mature enough to know that just because someone is better qualified for a job, it doesn't mean that you're going to get it. Life is not inherently fair but one needs to dream, especially in these trying times.

You are right about Kerry being rich already. But why did he have to rub it in our faces even more by marrying a billionaire :-)

Yes you are also right about life in general going on about the same no matter who gets elected. The cynical side of me says: OK Bush, do what you want, but just give me my damn tax cut. I think I deserve better than the last one, it should be just as good as the one my richer fellow citizens are getting. . .

Bush surprised me by NOT sounding like a total moron. I figured he'd put up a Ronnie Reagan-esque performance, or his Dad after a half-dozen tequilas (Sakes?). But despite the occasional stammers, he actually seems to know a bit about what his handlers are cramming down his throat about what's going on in the world.

I loved the poll results: Kerry kicked ass in the debate, yet BOTH guys gained a point in the 'who're you gonna vote for' poll and Bush still holds a commanding lead.

And the 'nucular' thing is hilARIOUS. Epimetheus directed me to the Bush-Kerry cartoon on jibjab.com, but man, I laughed my ASS off at that malaprop last night.

If you dont mind me asking , How much was your last tax cut?

Unless your extremely wealthy I'm not sure you come out ahead, wars cost alot of money , that money has to come from somewhere. So we ae spending more with alot less revenue.

The Fed is not shy when it comes to loaning the Government money. Especially when ist used to destroy a country and create millions of more consumers, and potential loans. The only problem is that even though Alan Greenspan more or less pulls the money out of his ass we still have to pay it back, we arent at liberty to create money so we have to pay it out of our earnings through higher taxes and the hidden tax known as Inflation.

So if you are like most of us your tax break, or loan from the government isnt worth what you will be paying over the long run.

I personally hate paying for nation building so that companies can use MY infrastructure that that I payed for ,and profit from it.

How much longer will we stand for this , Isnt our standard of living supposed to go up?

Heh, you got me there Larry.

I was a bit ironic when I wrote that. My tax cut was "okay" -- I'd prefer a good raise instead but in this economy, you gotta get what you can...

Problem is, where I live, state and local taxes have gone up quite a bit the past couple of years so it "balances" out anyway. But I've learned not to rely on the government OR my employer if I want to make more money. Thank God for eBay, I've been able to make some decent extra (and non-taxed ;-) income the past 18 months putting together refurbished Macs and selling them there.
I even use it to fund my mongering, lol

I never got this Republican obsession with taxes. Of course, govt. should be as small and as efficient as possible but sooner or later, you have to "pay the piper." Living in the first world is an expensive proposition no matter how your country's wealth is distributed or how much you're taxed. Did you know that in Cuba, there is no income tax? Still wouldn't want to live there though :-)

All these guys on Fox and the other news channels talk about how tax breaks can be a panacea for just about everything but I think your point is right on, that in many cases, this winds up being "robbing Peter to pay Paul" Cut taxes in one area but it goes up somewhere else. And look at rising health insurance premiums and gas prices, those are "taxes" too, generating tremendous friction in our economy. It's a good thing I don't need a car to get around where I live.

I guess Americans, for cultural reasons, value "ownership" over their income above other things. Just like we want to own big plots of land, big fat SUVs, lots of guns, etc. In other countries, everyone is covered in terms of medical needs but taxes, unemployment are significantly higher. Like I said, first-world living ain't cheap and we all end up paying for it one way or the other.

"How much longer will we stand for this , Isnt our standard of living supposed to go up?"

Don't think it's going to go up for awhile dude. We're so far ahead of second and third world. . .I have a feeling there's going to be a "recalibration" period as the globalization of labor trend carries on. Sorry people but this is unavoidable. Doesn't matter who's in the Oval Office this January, everyone else wants a piece of that American Pie, of first-world living, and the global trend seems to indicate that they're going to get a bigger slice this decade. . .

well its good to hear you took cheyneys advice , I hear selling your organs on the black market is another great way to supplement income. maybe soon we can work 20 hrs a day .

When I made the comment about standard of living , I was referring to the fact that working americans have seen their living standard drop this generation, the days of running a household with one income are long gone ,and that is a shame.

I love to hear these clowns talk about prosperity ,my favorite one has to be when they say "home ownership is at an all time high" that statement has been true since the beginning of time.

Drobledo sez, "I guess Americans, for cultural reasons, value "ownership" over their income above other things. Just like we want to own big plots of land, big fat SUVs, lots of guns, etc"

I read an article yesterday
http://www.boston.com:80/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/29/having_it_all_in_america

Funny opinion piece. A little too strident and bleeding-heart liberal even for my taste but we're talking Massachusetts here so what else can we expect?

This thread's already been getting off topic but I can't help it I guess. Here's another thing I'll throw out here just for fun:

Since we're talking about cars, remember the 70's? That was a great decade for big cars. Everyone wanted one of those really long cars, with the front hood that stretched for miles and a trunk that could fit half-a-dozen dead bodies without having to double them over. That was also the decade of John Holmes, the porn star with the 12" or 14" johnson.

Now, we're smarter. We know it's not about the length, it's the width that gives more pleasure, LOL. Maybe that's the real meaning behind our SUV craze. What strikes people about the Hummer is the way it takes up a "lane and a half" Think about it. . . :-)

"I love to hear these clowns talk about prosperity ,my favorite one has to be when they say "home ownership is at an all time high" that statement has been true since the beginning of time."

I don't understand why people fall for this. When the prez says home ownership is up, my mind translates as: 30-year mortgages are up. Now, nothing wrong with a mortgage and getting a piece of the American dream. But what happens when things go wrong, when you get laid off, or your salary isn't rising fast enough to make all your ends meet. What will that family do? It should be no surprise, especially in this economy, that foreclosures are up too. . . :-(

Bush seemed like he forgot to take a shit before the debate, and was thus pinching a loaf the whole time. The constipated look was pretty bad. Also, a few other things I picked up on, with a quick note - I do a lot of public speaking and my job basically consists of talking to people all day long. I've had quite a bit of public speaking training too. It can be weird, you get videotaped and then give a 5-minute speech, then you take an hour and break down both the audio and video. Realizing that you said "hmmm" 20 times in 5 minutes, or that you swayed from side to side while talking, things like that are pretty fucking unnerving. So, with that out of the way, this is what I saw:

Bush was hunched over the podium, almost hugging it. This is a sign of fear. He also nearly hyperventilated once, and was completely flatfooted by quite a few questions. I was afraid that he would completely lose it and start sucking his thumb and banging his head on the side of the podium. That would have been funny!

Vociferously. He actually said the Iraqis were fighting vociferously. That means talkitive, vocalizing. Basically, he used a big word that made no sense.

"It's hard work" He said that about 20 times.

"I see it on the TV screen" Yeah Bushie, we know you've never seen combat before, but that line took me right back to Full Metal Jacket: "Have you seen much combat?" "Well, I've seen some on TV"

"Mixed signals" I think George was thinking of mixed drinks.

About the only thing that Kerry said that I didn't like was "global test". What he meant to say was that before we invade a country or bomb the shit out of it, we may want to run it by at least a couple of the 6 billion non-Americans on this planet who also give a shit and have to live with our decisions.

Funny that I've posted so much on this thread considering I didn't even see the debate, LOL. I already made up my mind who I'm voting for so I skipped it. Still, from what I heard, I think I would have almost felt sorry for the guy. Probably would have felt too uncomfortable seeing him struggle so, which would make me change the channel.

Just a little anecdote here. I was at DC this past August (no, not mongering there you pervs ;-)
Did the whole Mall thing, went to the Lincoln Memorial. It had been many years since I've been there. Have you ever read what's on those walls? Now there is a giant for all ages and for all people. President over the bloodiest conflict in our history and he realized the gravity, the audacity of it all. Almost a philosopher in his thinking and I nearly cried, overwhelmed by the beauty of his words.

God bless the USA. If we can find six men who are a tenth of what Lincoln was, then our country can be saved. . .

Some good articles that are right on topic, especially the last one from Crawfords Texas Lone Star Iconoclast which has endorsed Kerry
www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=873

www.laweekly.com/ink/04/45/news-bearman.php

www.iconoclast-texas.com/Columns/Editorial/editorial39.htm

Porker:

Bush is currently being reamed by Cheney and his advisors for forgetting to mention 911 a bunch of times. His "its hard work" line, which he repeated 11 times, was thought up by Rove, and Bush does get credit for remembering it, but he forgot the big stuff.

Some historical notes about Presidential debates:

The only debate that comes to mind where the challenger really beat the incumbent is the first 1984 debate between Reagan and Mondale. Reagan simply had a bad night, he was obviously befuddled (probably early Alzheimers) and the Mondale people, after a slop drop in the polls, saw the second debate as an opportunity for a coup de grace (Mondale was pretty crappy, too, but Reagan was almost completely lost at times). Fortunately for Reagan, he had a good night the second time around (which is not uncommon for early Alzheimers), got off some good lines and righted the ship. Had Reagan been bad twice, he still may won the election but certainly everyone would have suspect Alzheimers for the next four years.

Reagan probably beat Carter in their debates, but I can't remember those, I think I was in Mexico at the time.

Bob Dole did well against Clinton, but Clinton was Good Enough.


Apart from that one bad night by Reagan, I have never seen an incumbent president as bad as Bush the other night, his father's worst night was better than that. Although I disagree with his politics, as President, Cheney would be much better.

Cheney - Edwards!!

I look to Cheney to try to deliver a Bentsen blow aganst Edwards, trying to make him look like Dan Quayle. Quayle is not a bad guy, but he has some personality flaw that makes people think he is an idiot or worse. Edwards may be shown to have such a flaw, as well, or maybe Cheney will try to create the vision of the nation's first twenty five year old President, if Kerry gets elected and something happens to him.

Edwards must look passably Presidential, not like some young lawyer. Cheney merely has to defend Bush and attack Kerry. Edwards has a really tough job against a wily pro.

All bets are off if Cheney is drunk, though, or otherwise incapacitated. If so, Bush is fucked.

Quayle's personality flaw IS that he is an idiot or worse. If you look at his performance in college as one measure (of many), he, along with Bush and Cheney (and other similarly "minded" Republicans), is representative of one of the most serious threats to America, the Axis of Stupidity.

Explorer,

I think you are underestimating Edwards quite a bit and at the same time overestimating Cheney. Cheney will be playing the inexperienced card but Edwards is only 7 years younger than GW so it is really not an age thing as much. I think Edwards youthful look will work in his favor not against him.

A few things to keep in mind. The debate is as much a TV show as anything else. Edwards looks much better to the camera than Cheney. Edwards was one of the best trail lawyers in the nation because he knows how to talk to people and get them to believe in him. Cheney is about as dry as they come. Quayle may have tried to represent himself as the next JFK, Edwards doesn't have to say anything people just see that in him.

If the debate focus is primarily foreign policy then Edwards will have a tougher time. Domestic policy and Edwards could mop the floor with Cheney.

Of course the truth of the matter is that the VP debates are pretty meaningless when it comes to people making a decision.

Edwards is quite similar to Clinton, every monger's favorite president. He's very intelligent, is a great public speaker and should look very good against grumpy, ratchety old Dicky Cheney.

Do not underestimate Richard Cheney. He is one of the most intelligent and articulate politicians of our time.

BTW, I watched Quayle on TV the other day, he seems a lot brighter than George Bush. I don't think that I would trust George Bush to clean the rooms at Hotel Cascadas. He might decide that the rooms at some other hotel need cleaning instead, since he has been known to confuse targets.

Cheney is just plain...SPOOKY...which is also to say that he is very UNPREDICTABLE. On the other hand, Edwards is NO Quayle so I don't envision any of those debate debachles BUT the bet is on Edwards losing his composure far before Robo-Cheney.

What I hope to see is Cheney getting all excited and stressed out if Edwards goes after him like Kerry did to Bush. I can hardly wait to see him get knocked down to the ground when his implanted defibrillator fires off. That'll rattle him good. Hhmmm --I wonder if I can get odds in Vegas as to whether he has a heart attack or stroke during the debate ??

I think Cheney, Rumsfeld,and Ashcroft are the real " Axis of Evil ". Bush is just their good ole boy public puppet.

Cheney will not get flustered, he will not get excited. He will be quite calm and quite good.

Unfortunately, John Edwards is no Bill Clinton.

Maybe Edwards can bring up Halliburton and Cheney will tell Edwards to fuck off just like he did to Patrick Leahy on the Senate floor. I’d LOVE to see Cheney break out with an F bomb in a nationally televised debate. Won’t happen, but I can dream!

As for the second Kerry-Bush debate, W will do much better. Rove and Hughes will be drilling into his head over the next week to stay cool; act like the camera is always on you, and REMEMBER THOSE DAMN RNC TALKING POINTS THIS TIME!!! He may not even answer any questions so he doesn’t have to think on his feet. He’ll just go right into memorized talking points so he doesn’t come across as such a fool.

One of the amusing parts of last debate was the opening. You know Kerry's people were telling him to greet and hold onto Bush's hand so he can exploit the height differential. Conversely, Bush's handlers were telling to shake and run. Apparently it's part of presidential lore that the taller man always wins.

Whether Bush does better at the next debate may depend on how he stands in the polls at that point. To my eyes, he showed a real lack of confidence at the last debate, which translated into a terrible performance. If the polls show that his position is deteriorating as a result of his debate performance, he may have trouble regaining his confidence. OTOH, if he finds his performance has not hurt him in the polls, he may go into the next debate thinking it doesn't matter what I do, I'm alright (i.e., invincible), in which case he may show a higher level of confidence and perform better.

Right now, it is entirely unclear whether Bush's loss in the last debate is having an impact on the percentages of people preferring one or the other candidate. The recently released Newsweek poll suggests it had a profound effect (with Kerry now marginally ahead as opposed to recently being far behind), whereas the Rasmussen daily tracking poll suggests the exact opposite, with Bush still maintaining a 3 to 4 percent lead, essentially the same as before the debate. As much as I would like to believe the Newsweek poll, I am skeptical. When the same sample was asked who won the debate, the Newsweek poll showed a blow-out, with 61 percent favoring Kerry and only 19 percent favoring Bush. These numbers are much more skewed than any other poll I have seen that asked the same question. Accordingly, it may be that for some reason the present Newsweek sample was skewed towards Kerry supporters, thereby accounting for his lead (albeit small) in the Newsweek presidential preference question. This assumes, as I am almost sure is the case, the Newsweek poll used a different sample of voters in the present poll (which showed a marginal Kerry lead) than in the previous ones (which showed large Bush leads).

On the third hand, the effects of the debate on people's views of the candidates may still be ongoing, and we may not really know the overall effect for a few more days, if even then. On this latter point, perhaps one debate performance is insufficient to change many minds, but if Kerry does as well relative to Bush next time, the cumulative effect may turn into something significant. And before anyone gets too excited about the results of the first debate, remember that Ronald Reagan's performance against Mondale in their first debate was every bit as bad as Bush's, something I believe was alluded to earlier in this thread. Reagan managed to come out strong in the second and third debates and by the time the electorate voted most had forgotten about the poor first debate performance. But then again, while Quayle was no John Kennedy, Bush ain't no Ronald Reagan (leading me to say rather frivolously that not only is Bush a moron, but he also is a LessRon, notwithstanding his attempts to follow in Reagan's footsteps).

That's right. Still think Reagan is overrated though and, hate to say this, but I found the adulation at his recent death a bit disturbing. Not to disrespect those who have passed, but it does go to show how far to the right the country has gone in the past 20 years, with Reagan's career considered in retrospect almost as if he were a saint and he singlehandedly won the cold war.

But you have to give credit where it's due and despite his reputation for being a bit dull-witted, he actually had a somewhat intellectual temperament. For many years he had a weekly radio show which he himself wrote the scripts for, building well-developed arguments for the policies he pursued throughout the rest of his career. Now, you can pick on his assumptions or his thought-processes/conclusions, but AT LEAST HE HAD A THOUGHT PROCESS. . . unlike our present leader :-)

Gotta agree with Drobledo in pretty much every respect. And while Reagan's contributions to the end of the cold war are overplayed by a mile, given where the world is now I'm not so sure "winning" the cold war, at least in the manner we did, was such a great thing. Goodbye to the Soviet Union under Gorbachev; hello to the Islamic fundamentalists as well as Christian nationalists unbridled by any real political or other constraints.

I regret to say though I now must disagree, at least for the moment, with LAguy (i.e., me) about skepticism over the recent Newsweek poll. This is because the CNN/Gallup poll, just released, shows the race between Kerry and Bush a dead heat; that poll was previously criticized as an outlier (sp?) when it very recently showed Bush with a super-large lead. So we now have two polls showing a rather dramatic change in presidential preference since the debate, and the Rasumussen poll showing a negligible change. Since the Rasmussen poll does daily tracking, it will be interesting to see whether it holds where it is the next few days, or whether it begins to show results more in line with the others.

I did not care for most of Reagan's policies, but I was a kid when he was in office. However, he was fairly intelligent and had his own ideas. While he was conservative, he wasn't overboard on the "holier than thou" attitude that Bush is.

Bush is a dilettante when it comes to politics and leadership in general. A true-life Forrest Gump. I don't know who coined it but I love this phrase: "George Bush was born on 3rd base, and thinks he hit a triple." That really does sum it up.

I didn't think much of the poles that showed Bush 10 points up, and I don't think much of the same ones that now show Kerry even or ahead. Kerry did great and Bush looked like shit but not enough to swing 10 points. I think the election is just too close and all of the poling numbers are bad guesses at best. I just go with the hard evidence that I see every day - voter registration is abnormally high, which is bad for Republicans, and the economy and Iraq are dicey which is bad for Republicans. I think Kerry did better than even he thought possible, and I think a lot of fence setters are now leaning Kerry's way and some of the Bush support is now back on the fence. That's all you can ask for - for people to think about the issues, without fear, and to make an intelligent, thought out choice.

I believe it was Ann Richards who coined the phrase (or, at least, popularized it). Unfortunately, it didn't help her much in her race against W. If it had, we would be much better off (no governorship for W then no presidency).

I'm watching Cheney and Edwards now; Cheney is very stable, never misses a beat, if only Bush were so sharp. On the other hand, he seems more defensive now than four years ago. Edwards talks too much, he is not nearly as statesmanlike as Kerry.

If you asked me who I would rather talk to in a bar, it would be Edwards, although Cheney could probably tell me what is over in Area 51 (but he wouldn't).

Bottom line: Edwards seems to be holding his own with Cheney, which is a big deal given that Cheney is a heavyweight.

One more note on Zarqawi, just to show how Cheney is pulling stuff out his ass:

NBC reported in March that the admin avoided attacking Zarqawi because it would undermine their case for war:

"NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger." [NBC Nightly News 3/2/2004]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/


Note that pulling stuff out of your ass during a debate in the long run doesn't matter if you win the debate!

Hey, doesn't Cheney work for some guy named George Bush? I believe that he forgot to mention him!

And, what happened to Cheney's microphone?

I'll go ahead and give this debate win to Cheney. He is so much more polished than Bush.

I think Edwards did a decent job of holding his own, much more so than Lieberman did in 2000 when Cheney took him to the cleaners.

I would imagine that most of the polls will reflect a tie or a slight edge to Cheney in regards to who won the debate.

So, Dick Cheney never met John Edwards before last night?