|
 |
January 22, 2004 REALTIME DEBATE BLOGGING....I don't often even watch political debates, but tonight's seems more important than usual and it was kind of fun blogging the State of the Union address on Tuesday. So let's do it again. Overall impressions — Nothing much, really; the whole thing was pretty subdued with no big moments or big fumbles. I thought Edwards sounded strong, Kerry and Dean were OK, and Clark might have bobbled a bit. Still, if there's anything I've learned while watching these things, it's that my gut reactions are often light years away from other people's. Overall, my guess is that the debate neither helped nor hurt anyone very much. 6:48 — Transcript of the debate is here. 6:47 — Huh? That's it? 6:45 — Pretty punchy criticism of Bush from Kerry: He's run "the most arrogant, most inept foreign policy in history." 6:35 — More charts from Kucinich. Doing it on TV is an improvement, but he needs to learn how to use PowerPoint better.... 6:32 — Clark: "I would not have voted for the [September war] resolution." Hmmm, a couple of months ago he really did say he "probably" would have voted for it, didn't he? 6:29 — Brit Hume is asking Clark whether he's really a Democrat. The question's already been asked. Clark is now answering. And he's saying the same thing he said the first time. Sheesh. 6:27 — Huh? Asking the candidates to pledge to protect New Hampshire's status as the first primary? 6:21 — I have to admit that it occasionally occurs to me just how much of an idiot I'd look like if I had to stand on a stage and answer questions like this.... 6:18 — Clark: the ACLU should have been brought in to "pre-approve" the CAPPS II passenger screening program for privacy violations. 6:12 — It always sets my teeth on edge when a candidate launches into a story about some ordinary voter he allegedly met a few days ago. I wonder how this goes over with other people? 6:10 — You know, I kinda feel sorry for Joe Lieberman. I mean, he's earnest and sincere and all that, and when he speaks he seems like he really means what he says. Still, whenever he starts speaking the only thing I can think of is: how long will it be after the polls close before he drops out? 6:03 — Sharpton isn't good for much, but at least he usually provides some comic relief. Not tonight, though. He's really off his game for some reason. 6:00 — Question to Kucinich: Is the Democratic party divided on the war? Answer: Yes. But there are occasional points of agreement: "The one thing that John Edwards and I agreed on in Iowa was that we both wanted more delegates." 5:57 — Lieberman: "Nice try, Peter." Well, at least he's honest about not being willing to answer the question. 5:52 — Dean: "You can't trust right wing Republicans with your money." That's a good line. 5:48 — Dean is emphasizing that we should repeal "every dime of the Bush tax cuts." Aside from whether that's good policy, I wonder if it's good politics? I'm not sure. Dean seems to be pushing a "We need to be adults" strategy, which I guess might work if he keeps at it. 5:44 — Question to John Edwards: John Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Was that right or wrong? Why is Peter Jennings asking Edwards about Kerry's position on the issue? Why not ask about President Bush's semi-endorsement of a marriage amendment instead? 5:40 — Pandagon is doing real-time blogging too if you want to surf back and forth. 5:36 — Scanning the other blogs, Josh Marshall says that Wesley Clark has gotten a bunch of Dick Gephardt's staffers from Iowa to sign on for his campaign. Now if he can only get some of his supporters as well, most of whom seem to have switched their allegiance to Kerry. 5:34 — I hope somebody says something interesting or makes some huge mistake soon. This is really boring so far. Say what you will about the stage management of the Rock the Vote debate, at least it held our attention a little better. 5:32 — Peter Jennings, after Sharpton has droned on about the IMF for a while: "Um, Reverend Sharpton, the question was actually about the Federal Reserve Board..." 5:25 — Clark sounds a little strident.... 5:16 — The Sharpton Doctrine? 5:15 — Pretty good answer from Edwards about voting no on the Iraq funding resolution. He made his case forcefully and clearly and even managed to sound tough doing it. 5:09 — Are reporters simply incapable of asking short, simple questions? 5:01 — Sheesh, the cameraman couldn't even figure out which candidates were which while Brit Hume introduced them. Bad start. Posted by Kevin Drum at January 22, 2004 05:02 PM | TrackBackComments
John Kerry looks really unhealthy. I don't want to pick on the man and know he had surgery not too long ago but....wow. Very gaunt, very strange coloring. (Which could be the lights, though. No one on stage is lit very well.) Posted by: Bailey at January 22, 2004 05:17 PM | PERMALINKLieberman did a great job describing Dean's healthcare proposal. Posted by: greg at January 22, 2004 05:21 PM | PERMALINKDoes Dean remind anybody else of David Banner? He LOOKS like he's holding back. You wouldn't like him when he's angry. Posted by: yetanothermike at January 22, 2004 05:25 PM | PERMALINKCan we get the reporters to keep it short please?????? This format doesn't wok for this many candidates. Posted by: spc67 at January 22, 2004 05:27 PM | PERMALINKJennings wants Sharpton to discuss monetary policy. Lovely. Posted by: mark at January 22, 2004 05:30 PM | PERMALINKdid sharpton prepare at all for this? Posted by: mike wright at January 22, 2004 05:31 PM | PERMALINKJust curious, but anyone know how this debate landed on FOX? How do the Dems always find a way to allow conservatives to frame the discussion? I can't wait for the post-debate reactions... Posted by: adam at January 22, 2004 05:36 PM | PERMALINKEdwards is probably too young for this round, but you libs need to get behind this guy. He's got the goods. Clearly the class of the field in terms of talent. Posted by: spc67 at January 22, 2004 05:38 PM | PERMALINKNothing like an update, especially if it involves drinking. Posted by: PG at January 22, 2004 05:41 PM | PERMALINKKevin, For all us lucky bastards who don't have cable and thus are unable to watch FoxNews -- we salute you! Posted by: General Glut at January 22, 2004 05:43 PM | PERMALINKGood for Holy Joe for not taking the bait to attack other Dems. Posted by: yetanothermike at January 22, 2004 05:56 PM | PERMALINKspc67, you do know that Edwards is 50, right? I can't believe it either, but his official bio says he was born in June 1953. Posted by: Canadian Reader at January 22, 2004 05:58 PM | PERMALINKspc67, you do know that Edwards is 50, right? I had no idea! I thought he was early 40's. Listening to Kucinich. Ugh, these guys all look bad under the lights tonight. Who keeps coughing? Posted by: mary at January 22, 2004 06:09 PM | PERMALINKDid John Kerry just say he was going to hold oil companies accountable for MBTE???? IIRC wasn't it the Clean Air act that mandated it's inclusion in gasoline in the first place?????? Posted by: spc67 at January 22, 2004 06:12 PM | PERMALINKClark's response about the Patriot Act was one of the best I've heard him give in the debates. Posted by: Erasmus at January 22, 2004 06:12 PM | PERMALINKDean: "You can't trust right wing Republicans with your money." That's a good line. A "good line"? Um, ok, I guess. I mean, I agree with it and all. And so this is an argument for tax cuts right? (Maybe I'm missing something....) Posted by: Blixa at January 22, 2004 06:16 PM | PERMALINKWhen Kevin Drum provides real-time commentary on the debate, he fails to mention that it's just an excuse to drive up traffic by making people reload this page. Posted by: nedra pickler at January 22, 2004 06:18 PM | PERMALINKA question to Sharpton on Iran. Irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant... Kerry keeps sticking out his tongue while speaking. Fully one percent of the electorate will not vote for him for this reason. *sigh* Posted by: mary at January 22, 2004 06:23 PM | PERMALINK"It always sets my teeth on edge when a candidate launches into a story about some ordinary voter he allegedly met a few days ago. I wonder how this goes over with other people?" Sometimes its annoying (Al Gore, and usually Bush) sometimes its done well, (Clinton, and occasionally Bush, the letter was well done in the SOTU) Posted by: Reg at January 22, 2004 06:25 PM | PERMALINK"And so this is an argument for tax cuts right? " Tax rates should be set to minimize the percentage of the economy consumed by government, and maximize the size of the private sector. By this definition, Clinton got it right, and 20 years of nutcase Reaganism has been a disaster. Yes, the Reaganites have no clothes; and I cannot understand why they still claim their policies decrease government and increase private sector. Posted by: Matt Young at January 22, 2004 06:29 PM | PERMALINKMatt Young, Tax rates should be set to minimize the percentage of the economy consumed by government, and maximize the size of the private sector. Are you saying that this is Howard Dean's position on the subject? Posted by: Blixa at January 22, 2004 06:35 PM | PERMALINKchart are fine RE: "It always sets my teeth on edge when a candidate launches into a story about some ordinary voter he allegedly met a few days ago. I wonder how this goes over with other people?" It always reminds me of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm's obnoxious stories about his fictitious constituent, Dickie Platt (sp?) the school janitor. It sounds contrived, like the cadidate is trying too hard to be earnest. Posted by: Oahu Guy at January 22, 2004 06:39 PM | PERMALINKRE: "It always sets my teeth on edge when a candidate launches into a story about some ordinary voter he allegedly met a few days ago. I wonder how this goes over with other people?" It always reminds me of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm's obnoxious stories about his fictitious constituent, Dickie Platt (sp?) the school janitor. It sounds contrived, like the candidate is trying too hard to be earnest. Posted by: Oahu Guy at January 22, 2004 06:40 PM | PERMALINKYow! I don't know how I managed to do it -- but my apologies to all for the previous double-posting. Posted by: Oahu Guy at January 22, 2004 06:41 PM | PERMALINKYou omitted the best part of Kucinich's response about Iowa. He halfway admitted his backroom deal with Edwards to screw Dean. Click on my name under this post to visit my blog for a transcript and more details. Sorry, I'm a little behind in my TiVo buffer on the debate, since I had to stop and transcribe this. Posted by: Charles at January 22, 2004 06:43 PM | PERMALINKGo Kerry! Good answer on the war resolution question. Posted by: mary at January 22, 2004 06:43 PM | PERMALINKHoward! The answer to what "red" state we can win is not "South Carolina", it's: Florida, just like the last time, asshole. Now ask me a serious question, lightweight. Posted by: 16 at January 22, 2004 06:44 PM | PERMALINKCan anyone tell me what holy Joe was saying about Saddam when he was actually gassing people, in possession of WMD's and a threat? Posted by: epistemology at January 22, 2004 06:45 PM | PERMALINKPeter Jennings is happy to work with his old colleague Britt Hume. Howard Dean doesn't have an upper lip. Thats why people think he's weird. Posted by: n at January 22, 2004 06:47 PM | PERMALINKWhat's with Kucinich and power point slides, is he the Perot of 2004 :)? Posted by: allan at January 22, 2004 06:50 PM | PERMALINKWhat the hell happened to the end of the debate? FOX just cut to a bunch of right wing whackos discussing the performance of the candidates. Posted by: allan at January 22, 2004 06:51 PM | PERMALINKThe debate is still going on here : "Are you saying that this is Howard Dean's position on the subject? [of setting tax rates right]" No. Dean is taking back all of the Bush taxes, putting him back to the Clinton tax rates, correct. At the time Clinton had it right, but in the meantime there has been a mammoth spending binge as the Reaganites got back into power. Remember, four years of unrestrained big government Reaganism. I would actually start with Clark's position, lower taxes on the middle class, raise them to the Clinton levels on the rich plus another 10% if I could. By rich I mean $250,000 and higher. I think Clark only wants them raised 5% on the rich. The reason is simple. The rich have brains, and we need those brains to pay attention to the long term problems that this federal government is causing. The rich represent a lobby group to restrain government spending, we need them on our side. If you don't tax the rich, they will let the Republicans spend us into bolivion.
Did anybody buy the "I am presidential" thing from Kerry? As I saw it play out, I thought mostly thought of his handlers. I
immediately though of him as a bushy haired, dope smoking, young
anti-war vet. It's over. I agree with Kevin on the whole. Kerry and Edwards both looked good, as did Dean. The Kossacks are calling it for Dean, but I don't see it. Posted by: Kennedy at January 22, 2004 06:59 PM | PERMALINKI'm sure you meant oblivion, but I like Bolivion even better. Maybe he's spending us into Argentinion, or Venezuelion, as well. Posted by: rvman at January 22, 2004 07:01 PM | PERMALINKStories about real people? Bug the crap out of me. I don't care who's doing it, it's pathetic. They could just say, a hypothetical person, earning so much, etc...We're not morons, we don't need human props. But Bush's letter from the little girl where he asks her to thank our troops was one of the worst. And I agree with spc67 that Edwards is the class of the group. And of the party that I can tell. Needs a haircut bad though. Posted by: andrew at January 22, 2004 07:21 PM | PERMALINKThe hit on Clark was painfully obvious. I counted six "gotcha" questions and one policy query (Patriot Act). All heeded Commander Rove. Posted by: shannon at January 22, 2004 07:24 PM | PERMALINKI've said it before, but the candidates didn't attack each other because Brit Hume was too busy reciting RNC talking points. Posted by: Kennedy at January 22, 2004 07:40 PM | PERMALINKWhy does your post run backwards in time? Posted by: Michael at January 22, 2004 07:40 PM | PERMALINKJennings: (to the effect) "Do you agree with Michael Moore that Bush was a deserter; and, if not, wasn't it your ethical duty to disavow his statement?" Clark: (if only) "I've heard this charge made by others also, sometimes asserting that he was merely AWOL for more than a year. I don't know whether it's true or not, and because I'm busy explaining to the American people what Bush has done wrong as president and what I'll do right when I am president, I don't have time to look into the matter. Besides, as a reporter, isn't that your job, Mr. Jennings? Or yours, Mr. Hume? Have either of you looked into it? Because I haven't seen any reports from you. Wouldn't it make more sense to ask a general whose command Bush was under rather than me?" Posted by: jayarbee at January 22, 2004 07:42 PM | PERMALINKWhen Kevin Drum provides real-time commentary on the debate, he fails to mention that it's just an excuse to drive up traffic by making people reload this page. Poor strategy if true. SiteMeter only counts visits from a given I.P. if they're over 30 minutes apart. Multiple visits in a short period count as one long visit, driving up the average but not the "uniques." Posted by: James Joyner at January 22, 2004 07:45 PM | PERMALINKThanks Kevin and all for the play-by-play for those unable to watch it live. Jayarbee, loved your "if only." Posted by: bittern at January 22, 2004 07:50 PM | PERMALINKI agree with Adam. Having Fox host this is suicidal. None of the big media are our friend, and Fox is the worst. Britt Hume shouldn't be within a mile of this. Neither should Russert. Either a nice generic Democrat, or else no TV debate at all. Sometimes it seems that the Democrats don't want to win. Their whole strategy is married to big TV buys, fattening up our enemies in the media. I agree that fighting the Reoublicans and the media both at once is tough, and I don't have a quick answer, but are the Democrats even aware of what's going on? What a bunch of morons. This is like having Carville moderate a Republican debate. That's how neutral Hume is. Posted by: Zizka at January 22, 2004 07:53 PM | PERMALINK... the whole thing was pretty subdued ... I fell asleep. I dunno if that's commentary on me or on the debate. Posted by: out4blood at January 22, 2004 07:59 PM | PERMALINKDean's best answer was to the "do you really lead with your heart?" question. Straightforward, honest, and what lots of us are thinking about the Democratic Party and coming election. Kerry did ok, except for two things: (1) someone asked him about rescinding tax cuts on the rich and he completely avoided answering the question -- not even a clever segue; and (2) he did a good enough job on his standard answer to the "why did you vote for the war" question, but the juxtaposition with Lieberman was, I thought, tough on him. I don't agree at all with Lieberman's POV but at least he took a position and has stuck to it. I thought the contrast was obvious. I loved that someone asked Kucinich about the backroom deal. I love more that he answered honestly. I just wish it bothered people more. Posted by: Opus at January 22, 2004 08:03 PM | PERMALINKYou know, I disagree about FOX, only on the subject of these debates. Both debates on FOX have been *far* better moderated than most of the others and there were several instances tonight in which the questioners did our guys a favor: 1. "Show us how you would defend yourself against Bush." Hey -- I want to know the answer to that, even if the premise is unfair. I want to know -- what will you say the next time the press brings [ ] up as puppets for the administration? 2. Clark had a difficult time with the Michael Moore "Bush = deserter" question but there had to be at least a couple of people out there who said, "huh? what's that all about?" Maybe some newbie press or tv guy will actually want to explain it to folks. Heh. 3. There were some large softballs lobbed for each candidate. "Tell us about your healthcare plan." I'll take that any day over Koppel's "why are you still here when you have no money?" questions. Posted by: Opus at January 22, 2004 08:07 PM | PERMALINKI agree that the heat sometimes seems hottest when directed at Clark. Coincidence probably, but I do believe he is the one that worries the opposition most, no matter who the frontrunner of the week may be. Posted by: Waffle at January 22, 2004 08:17 PM | PERMALINKPosted by Opus: "I loved that someone asked Kucinich about the backroom deal. I love more that he answered honestly. I just wish it bothered people more." I can't imagine why it would bother anyone at all, much less that it should bother them more. The 15% percent threshold meant that those candidates who did not receive that much at a given polling place would receive no delegates there. In order to make their votes meaningful, and potentially helpful to their chosen candidate because of the quid pro quo, the caucus goers were asked to support an alternate candidate hand-picked by their candidates. But they were obviously not compelled to do so and could stick with their original candidates or switch to an alternate of their own choosing. Why should such a non-binding relationship between Edwards and Kucinich disturb anyone? The whole caucus system is a "backroom deal." Posted by: jayarbee at January 22, 2004 08:21 PM | PERMALINKYeah, well I was IN the Iowa Caucus, and that isn't how it's supposed to work. After the declaration of viable candidates, you're supposed to persuade the nonviable caucusgoers to come to your group. A preordained deal subverts the whole process. Posted by: Charles at January 22, 2004 08:42 PM | PERMALINKAh, yes, Charles, and they are supposed to be persuaded by the force of your ideals, eh? Politics ain't beanbag, boy! Posted by: Blue at January 22, 2004 08:49 PM | PERMALINKScadalous Think about the context (Fox), the questioner (Jennings) and the person questioned (Clark, he of impeccable service). For many in America this was their first exposure to the AWOL charge. Let me recast this in white light: Check out how Jennings phrased his questions using brilliant psuedo-republican indignation. He covered his own back. The guy is so good he doesn't need a wing man. Only Jennings could have done this with such impeccable class. He stole the show, and our country owes him a round of applause. (Yes Clark could have answered snapier--a la jayarbee @ 07:42--but the real key here is the questions. Finally they exist. Will they now catch and flame?) Posted by: -pea- at January 22, 2004 08:56 PM | PERMALINKthanks for the blow by blow, kevin. and thanks for the debate commentary, too! Posted by: skippy at January 22, 2004 09:17 PM | PERMALINKI'm genuinely worried about clark now. he bobbled that question about michael moore. There is a real devil's bargain going on between those two. Moore is really too extremist to be closely associated with clark. On the other hand, if the matter is finally fully investigated and it comes out that Bush was in fact AWOL, this could turn out just fine. The American people won't care very much about the technicalities of the "deserter vs. AWOL" distinction; it will basically look like Moore was right. And that would do a favor to the democrats this year. But *all* of that hinges on (1) the AWOL accusation being true and (2) some reporter being able to uncover the proof. If the above fails to happen, this will prove a great liability for Clark. Posted by: mike at January 22, 2004 09:19 PM | PERMALINKIf anyone is interested, here's my reactions to the debate. Posted by: Chris Lehmann at January 22, 2004 09:20 PM | PERMALINKClark never made an allegation that Bush was a deserter, nor did he even throw it out as a suggestion. Michael Moore said he believes it, and Fox wants Clark to say Moore is wrong. Clark's answer is no, Moore can believe what he wants, and I don't know and don't care. Fox is making some stupid assertion that Clark should have to defend any remarks or beliefs held by anyone who happens to support him. That's crap. Posted by: clark at January 22, 2004 10:03 PM | PERMALINKmike: "But *all* of that hinges on (1) the AWOL accusation being true and (2) some reporter being able to uncover the proof." Check this out:
This is not the story of a search for missing records. We have the pertinent records. This is not a hunt for credible eyewitnesses and first hand statements. The officers involved have stepped forward. We have their testimony and we have the signed statements of those no longer living. This is the story of how George Walker Bush walked away from a years duty while in the National Guard. And, this is the story of how he has thus far gotten away with it."
Perhaps you meant force of ideas? Yes, that is the whole point of a caucus system. If your candidate is declared unviable, you are supposed to decide on your second choice by listening to your peers, not outside manipulators. Posted by: Charles at January 22, 2004 10:14 PM | PERMALINKMike and others are conceding the game to the Republicans, which is not unusual behavior at all. Clinton was guilty until proven innocent, and eveybody in the world threw shit at him. But Bush is Teflon, and until the cell door clanks behind him nobody can even suggest that he's guilty. That's the way way the media works. And step two is to make Clark gulity of suggesting that Bush is guilty. Even though he didn't. It's one thing to know that these BS games are being played. But you have to know that this is just the big lie and the slanted playing field. Whatever you say about this stuff, you have to establish the point right off that this is BS. You **can't** just jump in with how "this will be a real problem for Clark". Dems are such worthless fucking losers sometime. (Nicest thing I can say about you, Mike.) During the game you DON'T do inside-baseball comments. You hit the guy back twice as hard. Dems never do, though. Posted by: Zizka at January 22, 2004 10:49 PM | PERMALINKDennis's deal isn't really a "backroom bargain" as i see it. Nor was
it a mandate that had to be followed by lockstep zombies. It's not like
the candidate's agreement translates to anything more than a suggestion
on the caucus floor, at least among most that I saw. A friend of mine
went to the Dean camp (the other anti-war candidate) when Kucinch was
not viable at his caucus, and then was elected as a delegate for Dean,
from where he can support a candidate he can live with while carrying a
concern for Kucinich's progressive agenda. My wife and I went hoping to
help get clark whatever boost he could,(he's our
electability-and-we-can-live-with-him guy) but when Clark didn't get 15%
on the first round, we went and helped Kucinich (our candidate of
conscience) During the process we were aproached by various folks, mostly from our neighborhood. These were conversations, not shouting matches, and i felt a high level of respect for my individual decision making process. Posted by: Urk at January 22, 2004 11:03 PM | PERMALINKFrom the 3 minutes I watched of the Faux News "fair and balanced" cut-off-the-debate-early post debate discussion... I didn't get to watch the post-debate analysis on FOX after the initial airing but the nice guys over there are showing it again now... As adam said earlier, the Dems allowed them to frame this debate and that was a horrible move. How many questions either made no sense at all, forced a candidate to spend his precious minutes talking about one of the others (or a filmmaker), or were flat out attacks? On the other hand, the analysis has been less critical than what I expected and in some cases even complimentary. This got me thinking and reconsidering my initial disgust at the hosting network. It strikes me that even these guys understand that there is widespread uneasiness about the direction of the economy, healthcare, and other populist type issues. The Dems will be getting major airtime over the next few weeks and (especially if the numbers over at Donkey Rising are legit) it seems that many in their audience can probably be swayed. Posted by: conrad at January 22, 2004 11:22 PM | PERMALINKPosted by Charles: "If your candidate is declared unviable, you are supposed to decide on your second choice by listening to your peers, not outside manipulators." I doubt that many caucus goers would describe their candidate as an "outside manipulator." They've been listening to him all the while, else they'd not have chosen him as their candidate in the first place. Again, the deal was between Edwards and Kucinich, and it amounted only to them advising their supporters to make the other their second choice if necessary. People could (and I'm sure did) ultimately decide to vote for any second choice they truly wanted. This was a non-issue, brought up in an email and asked by a panel member only because he didn't have any interest in asking his own question of Kucinich -- as was made clear when the same questioner again chose to ask Kucinich an emailed question when he drew him in another round. Posted by mike: "On the other hand, if the matter is finally fully investigated and it comes out that Bush was in fact AWOL, this could turn out just fine." It won't be fully investigated. The media has no desire to touch this story, except by the edges to taint Dems with insinuations regarding their flighty "conspiracy theories." The point of my "if only" response for Clark was that it was only with such a challenging answer to Jennings' question that we could have hoped to have the matter fully investigated and widely broadcast on TV. The Boston Globe articles from 4 years ago, though well researched and documented, never were picked up or followed up by any other major media outlet, save a brief mention months after the election buried deep in the opinion pages of the New York Times. There was nothing from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or FOX. It's insane, but true. It should have been (and still should be) headline news across the country. This is but one of many such matters that the media has ignored, allowing the White House to be occupied by a complete fraud. But then, so are they. Posted by: jayarbee at January 22, 2004 11:35 PM | PERMALINKGood show, Kevin. Looks like a 3 way race to me, with Kerry in the comfort zone. I just hope no-one discovers his Taliban mistress smoking crack with her gay aborted Palestinian fetus. Posted by: Kevin Hayden at January 22, 2004 11:56 PM | PERMALINKDitto Conrad above about the Indy vote favorable (+9% as of today)
for the Dem nominee. The short version is that W won this vote by 2%
in 2000 but still lost the popular vote. Therefore if the Dem's can
hold an edge for the Indy vote it increases the chances of winning in
Nov 04. I didn't see any details however about which states have a large enough Indy vote that could tip that state to the blue side. Definitely worth a look ! http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/index.shtml Dean - Although probably politically disastorous, I actually kind of thing the screaming thing is kind of funny - although when I initially heard it, I found it illtimed and arrogant. His debate performance tonight seemed pretty good. I still think his campaign offers a great critique and (hopefully) provides a significant change to the PROCESS of American politics. I just think that America isn't quite ready to go all the way with him. Also, it'll take a better polished politician to carry it better. Same goes for Trippi. Still, if nothing else, he's established a beachhead, even if he got himself killed in the process. Edwards - is the safe choice for Dems at this point. Probably the best equipped to take on W. He is a little phony at times, but he can offer the strongest critique of Bush while offending the least amount of people simultaneously. I like Kerry, but I do feel he is a little to "by the numbers" and he has a very liberal voting record. Tough campaigner, though. Clark to me is totally fools gold. This guy is not ready. I mean, I'm glad you're on our side, but maybe you should try running for a lower office before running for President. He's my last choice (outside DK and AS) at this point. Lieberman, I actually like in a way. I would vote for him if he was the nominee. His morality thing is actually right on. I think he's too solicitious of the corportate/free trade world, though. He's just too right wing - or, more importantly, he advertises himself in such a way - to be an acceptable nominee to enough Democrats, at this point. Anyway, Ben P's current pecking order: 1. Edwards Posted by -pea-: "Check out how Jennings phrased his questions using brilliant psuedo-republican indignation. He covered his own back. The guy is so good he doesn't need a wing man. Only Jennings could have done this with such impeccable class. He stole the show, and our country owes him a round of applause." I listened carefully to Jennings phrase his questions and I checked out the transcript, as well: "At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush -- he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a "deserter." Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so." I'm sorry, but if that's "pseudo-republican indignation" or "impeccable class" and if it indicates that he "stole the show" and that "our country owes him a round of applause," then it went right over my head. What is pseudo about the indignation in his Republican spin driven assertion that it's a "reckless charge not supported by the facts?" You seem to be implying that his very mention of this matter was to give it new life so that it might finally become exposed to the public at large, as seems to be the hope of some posters here. Saying it's not supported by the facts is itself a reckless charge in the absence of the facts. It implies that Jennings has investigated the matter thoroughly and knows the facts. Questioning the ethics of Clark hardly seems like a tactic of someone who secretly questions the ethics of Bush. And if he knows the facts and has not reported them, what of HIS ethics? Had Jennings' question truly sprung from the motivation you suggest, couldn't he as easily "covered his own back" and simultaneously his credibility by phrasing his question along the lines of: "Now, that's a serious charge which Mr. Moore did not support with facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't challenge him to produce the facts, and state firmly that if he could not you would not stand by while he made such a charge about our Commander in Chief." In any case, if by some miracle this story gets legs and the truth of Bush's unaccounted for absence from his post while our country was at war is made known to the nation, while I'll still doubt any "impeccable class" on Jennings' part, I shall definitely offer him a tip of the hat. Posted by: jayarbee at January 23, 2004 12:46 AM | PERMALINKI seem to be in a minority, but Kevin you can quit providing stream of conscious reporting. I can get that stuff from TV or even radio. You are best at providing analysis. I am just wondering - don't we have enough superficial commentary already? Posted by: Cliff at January 23, 2004 06:29 AM | PERMALINKWhy does your post run backwards in time? I'd like to know, as well. I appreciate the rundown, but why scroll to the bottom and read up? Other individual posts read from top to bottom. Posted by: Spirit at January 23, 2004 06:45 AM | PERMALINKYes, It really matters so much which one of these big government bozos wins. We need more presidents like me. "I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan to indulge in benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds....I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution." Posted by: Grover Cleveland at January 23, 2004 06:54 AM | PERMALINKYes, I agree with my esteemed colleague President Cleveland. "I cannot undertake to lay my finger upon an article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Posted by: James Madison at January 23, 2004 06:58 AM | PERMALINKThis is an apt quote to desribe most Americans today, inlcuding most of the commentators on this site: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Posted by: Geothe at January 23, 2004 07:12 AM | PERMALINKYou **can't** just jump in with how "this will be a real problem for Clark". You can substitute any of the Dems for Clark in the above quote from Ziska. Dems are idiots! George Bush and his gang of felons are lurching from one disaster to another across the political landscape and do you see the Republicans wringing their hands while castigating their people and anguishing over how bad things look? No. Republicans have somehow figured out that IT IS STUPID to provide the ammunition to the other team. That IT IS STUPID to point out Bush's weaknesses to the nation. Republicans continuously play offense while we Dems scramble around, criticizing our own guys, trying to figure out why no one understands our message. How can the nation fucking understand our message when the Republicans are always the ones framing the debate? You wonder why the Republicans own the Senate, White House and the House? Well, granted...they're lying cheating bastards. However, they also know enough to have a united front and they don't cut their own guys off at the knees. Posted by: chris at January 23, 2004 07:21 AM | PERMALINKRepublicans/democrats are just two sides of the same coin. Yeah, let's see, we have a choice between big government, and big government. Under King George the average colonist paid taxes which amounted to 5 percent of what he earned. Right now the average man pays 50 percent. The average man now works (slaves) 20 years just to pay his obligations to government, but kevin seems to agree with Dean that we should all just be adults and pay (slave) a little more. Like that earlier post from Geothe said: "None are more hoplessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Anonymousis - if the only thing you know about the federal government is the size of the annual budgetary outlays, then you have a point. Otherwise, you just look like a dolt. Posted by: apostropher at January 23, 2004 07:52 AM | PERMALINKAnyway, Ben P's current pecking order: So Ben, nice choices explaining who you support and why. Would the list be in the same order if your perspective shifted from: who satisfies my needs to who might most satisfy the voting public's needs? Jayarbee...I see it from your angle too. The difference is that I assume Jennings is aware of the AWOL facts, and it appears that you assume he is not. It there is a middle path between our views it is just this: Jennings unbolted the door--no one else ever has. If Clark had stepped boldly through like you hypothesized, we'd both be ecstatic. Let's hope opportunity knocks twice, and that next time, Clark cribs your response. Posted by: -pea- at January 23, 2004 07:56 AM | PERMALINKWow! Apostropher, that was a stunning and on point rebuttal. Posted by: Anonymousius at January 23, 2004 08:25 AM | PERMALINKI thought Jennings was actually trying to help the Dems make their case against Bush. Many of the questions were framed in terms of them facing Bush in debate and asking them how they would push back. It was great to have a debate free of fratricidal demagoguery. (I do hope the Clark/Moore question about aWol comes up again-some reputable media organizations have suggested there is something to it). Posted by: BobNJ at January 23, 2004 08:27 AM | PERMALINKAww, geez, so now it is not good enough to look back on the sainted '50s with longing. We need to look back to the 1700s and the 1800s, when taxes were low and life was idyllic. Like all dreamers, the libertarians of today are like the communists of old. If only this, if only that. If only everyone would do what I say, we would be living in a paradise on earth. Personally, I like my 21st century comforts, and you are welcome to go back to a 1700 lifestyle any time you wish. Posted by: Tripp at January 23, 2004 08:40 AM | PERMALINKI agree with most of what's been said about the Jennings question concerning AWOL Dubya. Maybe the fact that the question was simply spoken will lead some people to enter Bush deserter into their friendly Google search window, and they'll find the facts on their own. Still, it makes me mad that they should have to, that's the media's job. Jennings, just to clarify, the thing that's "not supported by the facts" is the idea that Bush came anywhere near fulfilling his National Guard obligation. You've had four years to figure this out, what the f$#!'s your problem? And why is it that the first time you even mentioned it was only to tsk-tsk Mike Moore for making some "reckless charge"? And yet the right wing is still going to whine about the "liberal media" until the sun burns out. Focker, if the media were really that liberal, your boy Dubya would be in Leavenworth right now. Posted by: Doug G. at January 23, 2004 09:11 AM | PERMALINKI'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned here - but I found Diane Sawyer's post-debate interview with Howie and Judy Dean very interesting. I thought the interview would be much more blogged about - I haven't seen anything about pretty much anywhere - since it was a reprise of the the 60 Minutes interview that saved the Clinton campaign. And, after having watched it, I've got to say, as much as I dislike Howie, that's how much I like Judy Dean. I thought she came across great - even though it is clear that she couldn't care less about politics. She's got her own life as a doctor and a mother, and she seems really happy about that - she's not looking to use her marriage to push policy positions or raise her own profile. Good for her. Plus, she's got a great smile and laugh. It's too bad that she dislikes politics so much - she'd be great out there campaigning for Howard. In the unlikely event event that Howie becomes President, I think she'd make a great first lady. Posted by: Al at January 23, 2004 09:24 AM | PERMALINKThe rich have brains, and we need those brains to pay attention to the long term problems that this federal government is causing. So, when should we expect Paris Hilton's expert testimony at the Senate Finance Committee? Warren Buffett has it right: there's a class of the rich that are as suited to 'pay attention' to government problems as the kids of gold medallists are to compete in the Olympics. Wealth is no indication of ability in this new Gilded Age. 'The rich are different than you and I... they have more money.' And that's all. If you're looking for advice on how to balance the budget, then you need to talk to that section of the working poor whose circumstances have turned them into financial masterminds. Boy is Lieberman a good guy. Good guy, bad candidate. We still remember his tepid performance against Dick Cheney, yes? Or his tepid support for Gore in Florida, yes? Posted by: ahem at January 23, 2004 09:26 AM | PERMALINKTripp, Yes, you're so right. That's exactly what Patrick Henry said, "...Give me comfort, or give me death." Posted by: Anonymousius at January 23, 2004 09:35 AM | PERMALINKI agree with Al re Dean's performance with Sawyer. It was pretty good. what was terrible was diane Sawyer & ABC's performance. Sawyer addressed Judy Dean as "Dr. Steinberg Dean" twice after making a big deal about how to address her and getting the answer "Judy Dean." Sawyer made a pointless and badly supported comparison to the clintons' 60 minutes interview,& asked no substantive questions. worse, after the second time they showed the footage from the rally, along with some Leno/Letterman jokes about it, they said "that's the last time we'll look at it." then, late in the interview, they trotted it out again, seeming to try to get a rise out of Dean. Again-No substantive questions-Arrggh! There was one question about Dean's position on the war, but the question itself was accompanied by some weird footage of Saddam Hussein WEILDING A SWORD-WTF? Does it seem to anyone else that the media folks are a little self focused and spend alot of time talking about little dramas that wouldn't even be dramas without their involvement? as Dean pointed out in the interview, he WAS the "frontrunner"-BEFORE a single vote was ever cast. I thought that the Dean's came off pretty well in comparison to the
pictures of the Bushes and the Clntons that got montaged next to them.
They seemed like nice, smart, loving, upper class granola folks, who
i'll take over the upper class faux rib eaters currently running the
country. 6:35 — More charts from Kucinich. Doing it on TV is an improvement, but he needs to learn how to use PowerPoint better.... Hmmm, short, jug-eared, penchant for using charts on TV . . . yet too much of a leftwing idealist to have a chance . . . Posted by: Bragan at January 23, 2004 10:47 AM | PERMALINK"So, when should we expect Paris Hilton's expert testimony at the Senate Finance Committee?" When Paris Hilton sees her income cut by 10-20% in taxes you better believe her advisors will pay close attention to how government spends money. In fact, we know from Clinton that higher marginal tax rates were closely accompanied by welfare reform and defense cut backs. It is the secret weapon of Democrats that more progessive taxes protect us from the idiocy as represented by the following quote: "Personally, I like my 21st century comforts, and you are welcome to go back to a 1700 lifestyle any time you wish." The author claims that if the relative ratio of the public sector to the private sector changes, then electricity disappears. I often wonder what sort of logic our professors instill in students, and this statement obviously comes from a student or recent graduate. You can always tell the recent college graduates, they seem so much stupider than the recent high school graduates. Here we talk about Kevin again. "kevin seems to agree with Dean that we should all just be adults and pay (slave) a little more." Yes, Kevin's logic is often incredulous, and his policy contradictions are never explained. But Kevin is not here to enlighten, he is here to get his political side across, regardless of the cost, even when the cost of his own pet project, the environment. But, there is one grain of truth about taxes. The sooner we are faced with paying for the government spending we demand the sooner we face the contradictions. In Kevin's case, if we start taking another 15% of his wealth, then Kevin will start wondering why his income is now used to directly increase the pollution and resource consumption via government. As long a Kevin can avoid that contradiction, the longer the he will allow government to engage in environmental destruction, a policy he claims to object to.
One more gratuitous attempt at blogspam: Ross Moonbeam or Jerry Perot Posted by: Bragan at January 23, 2004 11:20 AM | PERMALINKgay blind date sex videos herfirstanalsex her first anal sex her first anal sex galleries herfirstanalsex gallery her first anal sex gallery her first anal sex images her first anal sex movie gallery her first anal sex movies herfirstanalsex pics her first anal sex pictures herfirstanalsex trailers her first anal sex trailers Posted by: street blowjobs at June 30, 2004 06:32 PM | PERMALINKLamonte Cranston once hired a new Chinese manservant. While describing his http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/sex-dog-fucking-movies-animal-fucker-beastiality-zoosex-links-bestiality-pics.html sex dog fucking movies animal fucker beastiality zoosex links bestiality pics html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/the.html the html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/clit-adult-erotica-male-hanging-zoofilia-femdom-bare-pictures-movies-multiple-breasts-whore-cartoons-feet-old-orgasms-free-dick-sucking-big-titties.html clit adult erotica male hanging zoofilia femdom bare pictures movies multiple breasts whore cartoons feet old orgasms free dick sucking big titties html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/amature-feet-british-for-fucking-celebs-self-sex-girls-female-nude-celebrity-tit-sucking-naked-celeberties-free-panties.html amature feet british for fucking celebs self sex girls female nude celebrity tit sucking naked celeberties free panties html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/links-adultkey-passwords-model-dvd-video-check-cartoon-adult-movie.html links adultkey passwords model dvd video check cartoon adult movie html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/freepic-intercourse-jpg-pics-porno-rooms-suck-ejacuation-snake.html freepic intercourse jpg pics porno rooms suck ejacuation snake html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/kontakte-sex-cream-puff-ficken-jpg.html kontakte sex cream puff ficken jpg html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/geschichten-nackt-titten-treffpunkt-inzest-orgeln-tisch-und-verboten-riesen.html geschichten nackt titten treffpunkt inzest orgeln tisch und verboten riesen html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/free-black-sexual-anatomy-and-older-orgy-cum-sex-indian-actress-naked-blowjobs-amateur-human-adolescentes-sexe-shirtless-men-pictures-swallowing-sluts.html free black sexual anatomy and older orgy cum sex indian actress naked blowjobs amateur human adolescentes sexe shirtless men pictures swallowing sluts html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/suck-red-clic-extreme-demi-moore-stories-bodybuilder-erotic.html suck red clic extreme demi moore stories bodybuilder erotic html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/beastiality.html beastiality html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/private-gay-free-porn.html private gay free porn html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/hardcore-erotica-live-xxx-sex-chat-palace-free-photos.html hardcore erotica live xxx sex chat palace free photos html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/porn-gangbang-sex-picture-new-nude-naughty-celebrities-screensavers-celebraty-teens-free.html porn gangbang sex picture new nude naughty celebrities screensavers celebraty teens free html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/teenage-ugly-celebriteis-celeberty-of-celebraties-panties-men-celebrite-black-chicks-sluts-nude-free-pictures-fetishes-naked.html teenage ugly celebriteis celeberty of celebraties panties men celebrite black chicks sluts nude free pictures fetishes naked html http://www.live-shower-shows-free.com/hard-core-sex-porn.html hard core sex porn html Posted by: black nude girls for ebony teens lovers at August 5, 2004 07:06 AM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - Site Map of www.jiaowangxing.com
Cashmere yarn
Posted by: cashmere sweater at August 14, 2004 03:06 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
