« This Democrat can't be serious? | Main | The debate through fresh eyes »
October 13, 2004
Debate III - first impression -- GW wins
This was almost the mirror image of the first debate, but this time Kerry was tired, his face drawn, blinking to distraction. GW was fast right out of the gate, smiling, open, great marshalling of facts and on point in the rebuttals.
And what struck me most was Kerry spent the vast majority of his answering time saying things he has already said. Nothing new at all. Domestic issues were supposed to be GW's weak point, but he clearly relishes talking about domestic issues.
GW's sincerity clearly showed. He was especially impressive on the thorny question of his faith. He handled very well the same-sex marriage issue (and Kerry really reached new lows with the non-sequitur of waving Cheney's daughter in front of the electorate. Beyond the pale, JoKe, beyond the pale).
GW was optimism, Kerry was doom and gloom. GW showed leadership, Kerry was a prissy cynic, in the Oscar Wilde definition:
knows the price of everything, the value of nothing
UPDATES: Bill at INDC has a great keypoint list.
Hugh Hewitt's scorecard is up.
II gotta absolutely love Jeff Goldstein.
In another moment of pomo-inspired dementia, some of the lefty sites are urging their readers to spam the online polls—and then are reporting breathlessly on those very spammed poll results to “prove” a sizeable Kerry victory. Which is a lot like calling yourself the greatest lover in the world when all you ever do is masturbate. I think.
Posted by Darleen at October 13, 2004 07:32 PM
Comments
Bush certainly did better controlling his temper and demeanor. Good for him.
But Kerry was clearly the more capable leader. Bush couldn't give any specifics about fixing the economy, fixing the Iraq mess, and just relied on vague feel-good stuff about "freedom" and "keep more of your money."
If you want a good ol' boy drinkin' buddy, Bush is the guy. But we need somebody smart and experienced, with a specific, realistic plan to run the country. Say, a Vietnam vet who knows what war is, who understands economic realities, and who cares about the middle class. Hey, that's Kerry.
Even if you don't like Kerry, you can't argue that the Bush presidency has produced good results for America. He's screwed up too much, and he doesn't deserve a second chance. Nothing personal, it's just business. Not to mention patriotism.
Why was bringing up Cheney's gay daughter offensive to you? What's the big deal? She's queer, get used to it. If you want to say that gay people should never be mentioned in politics, go for it. But I disagree. I think it was an appropriate, and even a kind reference.
Posted by: Binacontenda at October 13, 2004 10:06 PM
Cheney's daughter is not "fair game" even as Mary Cahill tried to excuse Kerry's low blow.
Kerry was an empty suit. There is no there there. He was clearly unnerved by the faith question and the health care issue.
Kerry has no clue on how to be President.
My 21 y/o daughter, Heather, who is very non-political, watched most of the debate with me. I'm working on a post about her impressions.
Posted by: Darleen at October 13, 2004 10:41 PM
I watched the first 30 mins, then only tuned back in occasionally for the last hour. It was obviously going to be another Bush win. After "A litany of complaints is not a plan.", I knew he had it in the bag. Though Kerry did try to come up with some specifics at least this time on a few items.
My big domestic quarrel with Bush in on immigration - NO amnesty for illegal aliens!
National security is the issue this election and Kerry hasn't a clue on that.
Posted by: Sally at October 14, 2004 04:49 AM
from last night (http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html)
BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
NOT TRUE!
Here's Bush on March 13th, 2002
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
Posted by: Brad at October 14, 2004 07:00 AM
Josh Marshall has an insightful comment on the hysterical reaction to Kerry's mentioning Cheney's daughter's sexuality:
"Not only is Mary Cheney not closeted, her professional life has been explicitly tied to her sexuality. She did outreach to the gay and lesbian communities when she worked at Coors.
It is a delicate issue -- since it's inherently personal and deals with one of the candidate's children. But it was brought up in the context of a question about whether homosexuality is a choice. And more to the point: what's the problem exactly unless you instinctively believe that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of?"
Posted by: Brad at October 14, 2004 07:03 AM
Kerry's *use* of Mary Cheney, of doing reductive identity politics as her as nothing but a LESBIAN (get that America... Cheney's daughter is a LESBIAN!! Can we say it again? LESBIAN LESBIAN LESBIAN) is not that far removed from Kerry's cynical strategy in using "cripples" to get media attention for his anti-war activities.
PEOPLE are more than one characteristic that then lumps them into a "group."
If Kerry had made reference to the George P. Bush during the illegal immigration questions and people criticized him for that, would you charge the criticizers of being ASHAMED that GP was Hispanic?
If one of Kerry's own children were gay and he wanted to use them, that's his right, but he's using SOMEONE ELSE'S family member. And the use was calculated, egregious and just plain classless.
Posted by: Darleen at October 14, 2004 10:14 AM
Ah, the old GOP standard - fake moral outrage.
Come on, Darleen, admit it. You're having a hard time staying mad about this because it's nothing. Kerry mentioned the gay Cheney daughter, ooh, how terrible.
At least he didn't bring up the LESBIAN ROMANCE NOVEL that Lynn Cheney WROTE. It's called "Sisters." Two babes get it on in the old West.
Now how outraged are you?
Aren't you sick of getting all upset for fake reasons?
Posted by: Binacontenda at October 14, 2004 12:31 PM
Scott
I'm a mom. I'm coming at this from a mom perspective.
You don't touch another mom's child.
And for a mom, your kids are always your kid. This is not fake outrage, and the only reason it has had legs is because it is now obvious that Kerry's Mary reference (and not to Barney Frank, or McGreevy or Elton John or any other prominent person who happens also to be gay) was planned. 1-Kerry hasn't apologized 2-Elizabeth Edwards is out slamming Lynne Chenney.
Utterly classless. Personal politics at it worse.
Posted by: Darleen at October 14, 2004 12:58 PM
Darleen,
I've been thinking about this all day. I agree with you that Kerry should not have used Mary Cheney's publicly known sexuality to make a point. He should have answered the question without mentioning her (he didn't mention her by name, by the way).
But...Where was Lynne Cheney when Alan Keyes said Mary Cheney was practicing "selfish hedonism?"
And how hypocritical of Pat Buchanan to denounce Kerry on MSNBC last night (who, to quote James Wolcott "in his rampaging homophobe days once urged Mayor Ed Koch and Governor Mario Cuomo to cancel NY's Gay Pride Parade or 'be held personally responsible for the spread of the AIDS plague'").
I also think the Religious Right, who (pls allow me to remind you, since you do not appear to be an evangelical) CONTROL the party of Bush, need to be reminded that "one of their own" is an out lesbian--that everyone, obviously, has gays in their family.
Andrew Sullivan is worth reading on this topic:
http://andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_10_10_dish_archive.html#109772902826376794
But you have a valid point--this was not really appropriate.
Posted by: Brad at October 14, 2004 02:07 PM
Geez, Brad
Who really pays that much attention to Keyes?
;-)
And that goes for lots of Republicans who find him a nutburger, too (very conservative Michael Medved has called him that more than once). And I'd also remind you that Pat Buchannan got his wide rearend kicked out of the Republican party long ago. Good riddance!
I would disagree that Evangelicals "control" the Republican party. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have far less power within the GOP than the AFL-CIO and trial lawyers association has with the Dems.
Posted by: Darleen at October 14, 2004 02:36 PM
You know it's fake outrage, Darleen. You don't even care anymore, you just pretended to get upset as long as it was useful politcally.
As far as I'm concerned, threatening voters with a terrorist attack if they voted for Kerry was a far lower blow than merely mentioning Mary Cheney being gay. Who cares?
Did they say anything bad or disparaging about her? Of course not. Both Edwards and Kerry were gracious and respectful.
Darleen, how upset did you get when Rush called Chelsea Clinton a dog, and made barking noises on his show? Remember that? Or did you just giggle along with the other dittoheads?
I'd like to know.
Re. "Cheney's daughter is not 'fair game' even as Mary Cahill tried to excuse Kerry's low blow."
What was called "fair game" was the ISSUE of gay marriage and homosexuality in general, not Mary in particular. Besides, they didn't make "game" of her, just mentioned her existence and that she was gay. Just like she does. Just like the Cheneys have. In campaign speeches. BFD.
Would you consider it a "low blow" for your opponent to say nice things about your daughter being a heterosexual if you were running for office, and she worked on your campaign?
Why or why not, and would it be different if they were gay?
You seem to forget that most decent people are not ashamed or outraged by the fact of homosexuality.
"When people think, Democrats win."
-President Bill Clinton
Posted by: Binacontenda at October 25, 2004 07:27 PM
Kenyan opposition leaders say they will continue to hold rallies demanding new elections, despite a government ban.
Posted by: Abraam at November 28, 2005 05:10 PM