don't think I'll be chatting as much as last week, but it'll be an interesting contrast of styles, gravitas vs. charisma. the media has placed all the pressure on cheney; i wonder if they'll grant edwards the same pass on content as they did kerry?
I wonder if they'll give Cheney the same pass on the truth that they've given Dubya....for three and a half years!
I think the press will give both Cheney and Edwards the same pass, and fully expect for you to see it ad a Edwards only pass. Carry on.
A side note: I guess Jr. needs to clarify a few things before Friday! I'm suprised he didn't call a press conference. ------------------------------------------- Bush to give major speech Tue Oct 5 WASHINGTON (AFP) - Concerns a loss of momentum after his debate with John Kerry, US President George W. Bush has abruptly scheduled a major speech for Wednesday in hopes of halting the erosion of his lead in the polls, The Washington Times reported. In a rare, last-minute change in the presidential schedule, Bush has scrapped a planned talk on medical liability and instead will give what the White House called a "significant speech" about the two central issues of the campaign -- the war on terrorism and the economy, the newspaper said. The president is said to be eager to rebut Kerry's attacks on such issues, especially those that came during last Thursday's presidential debate, according to The Times. "There has been an attempt by the president's opponent to launch false attacks and mislead the American people on these big priorities," the paper quotes White House press secretary Scott McClellan as saying. "There are some big differences facing the American people, and the president wants to highlight those differences." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/afp/20041005/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_bush_speech running on empty...
wonder if this will come up tomorrow? edwards, last night on nightline: "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind." --John Edwards
If that line does come up in the debate it would only be one more example of Bush/Cheney not talking about the issues. That routine is tired, and played out at this point.
The Falling Scales By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: October 5, 2004 Last week President Bush found himself defending his record on national security without his usual protective cocoon of loyalty-tested audiences and cowed reporters. And the sound you heard was the scales' falling from millions of eyes. Trying to undo the damage, Mr. Bush is now telling those loyalty-tested audiences that Senator John Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" means that he "would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions." He's lying, of course, as anyone can confirm by looking at what Mr. Kerry actually said. But it may still work - Mr. Bush's pre-debate rise in the polls is testimony to the effectiveness of smear tactics. Still, something important happened on Thursday. Style probably mattered most: viewers were shocked by the contrast between Mr. Bush's manufactured image as a strong, resolute leader and his whiny, petulant behavior in the debate. But Mr. Bush would have lost even more badly if post-debate coverage had focused on substance. Here's one underreported example: So far, Mr. Bush has paid no political price for his shameful penny-pinching on domestic security and his refusal to provide effective protection for America's ports and chemical plants. As Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic: "Bush's record on homeland security ought to be considered a scandal. Yet, not only is it not a scandal, it's not even a story." But Mr. Kerry raised the issue, describing how the administration has failed to protect us against terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush's response? "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises." Oh, yes we do. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Mr. Bush's tax cuts, with their strong tilt toward the wealthy, are responsible for more than $270 billion of the 2004 budget deficit. Increased spending on homeland security accounts for only $20 billion. That shows the true priorities of the self-proclaimed "war president." Later, Mr. Bush, perhaps realizing his mistake, asserted, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." But he had already conceded that he isn't. It's also not clear whether voters have noticed the collapse of Mr. Bush's cover story for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. In Coral Gables, Mr. Bush asserted that when Mr. Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam, he "looked at the same intelligence I looked at." But as The Times confirmed last weekend, the Bush administration suppressed intelligence that might have raised doubts in Congress. The case for war rested crucially on one piece of evidence: Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes that, according to Condoleezza Rice, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But the truth, never revealed to Congress, was that most of the government's experts considered the tubes unsuited for a nuclear program and identical to the tubes used by Iraq for other purposes. Yes, Virginia, we were misled into war. Now it's Dick Cheney's turn. Mr. Cheney's manufactured image is as much at odds with reality as Mr. Bush's. The vice president is portrayed as a hardheaded realist, someone you can trust with difficult decisions. But his actual record is one of irresponsibility and incompetence. Case in point: Mr. Cheney completely misread the nature of the 2001 California energy crisis. Although he has stonewalled investigations into what went on in his task force, there's no real question that he placed his trust in the very companies whose market-rigging caused that crisis. In tonight's debate, John Edwards will surely confront Mr. Cheney over that task force, over domestic policies and, of course, over Halliburton. But he can also use the occasion to ask more hard questions about national security. After all, Mr. Cheney didn't just promise Americans that "we will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators" by the grateful Iraqis. He also played a central role in leading us to war on false pretenses. No, that's not an overstatement. In August 2002, when Mr. Cheney declared "we now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he was being dishonest: the administration knew no such thing. He was also being irresponsible: his speech pre-empted an intelligence review that might have given dissenting experts a chance to make their case. So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush. E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?oref=login
Well Bush will look better in front of the group "Republicans United Against the Environment" or whatever carefully vetted group that he reads his handlers' lines to. I admit that Dubya has real acting ability when speaking rehearsed lines. However, it could just make the contrast sharper when he has to go back to answering questions in front of a neutral audience on Friday's townhall debate.
this is like my posting an article by bill o'reilly....really sad springsteen recently said in rolling stone he'd gotten alot of solace from paul krugman and maureen dowd. makes it hard to get yer rock on to jungleland when one of your favorite singers has entered the fever swamps.
oh? I thought it was like posting a thread about cheating or throwing the first pitch? You know? Important stuff that needs to be discussed. But by all means! Post away my man!
So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush. Wrong. Edwards should go after Cheney's boss. Damage control is an order of magnitude harder for attacks on GWB viz-a-viz Cheney.
What? It is a direct condemnation and criticism of anyone who would vote for the Bush ticket. You're kerrying.
No if you say that Bush's policies are bad for the country, and if people think that issues such as Unnecessary war, huge debt increase, loss of jobs, aren't important, then they can be idiots and vote for Bush. It is related to the actual issues. The fact that Edwards chose a clumsy and awkward way to express that doesn't deal with the issues at all.
re: the debate tonight... Asked whether Bush would have any words of wisdom for Cheney, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters: "I don't think he needs to extend any." BWAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by FranchiseBlade No if you say that Bush's policies are bad for the country, and if people think that issues such as Unnecessary war, huge debt increase, loss of jobs, aren't important, then they can be idiots and vote for Bush. <b>You assume that everyone agrees with your viewpoint that our challenges here are due to President Bush's policies.</b> It is related to the actual issues. The fact that Edwards chose a clumsy and awkward way to express that doesn't deal with the issues at all. <b>At least you recognize that Edwards chose clumsy words which insulted about half of all Americans.</b>
GOPers did you get the memo??? --------------------- GOP Campaign Urges Post-Debate Spin 4 minutes ago By EMILY FREDRIX, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The assignment: go forth and spin. The objective: win the battle of the post-debate polls. The Bush-Cheney campaign is urging supporters to go online after Tuesday's debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Sen. John Edwards in hopes of defeating what it calls the "Kerry campaign spin machine." Operatives for Democratic candidate John Kerry "managed to mask their candidate's flip-flops on the war in Iraq" after last week's presidential debate, Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman wrote in a letter to supporters. "If we plan to win the election, we must fight back against their spin and make sure our friends and neighbors get the truth," Mehlman said. A candidate's performance can attract undecided voters, but what happens afterward is equally important, Mehlman said. "People's perceptions are shaped as much by their conversations around the water coolers as by the debates themselves," the letter said. The e-mail, which was sent early Tuesday, asks supporters to vote in online polls, conducted by most major networks after the debate, and to print debate fact checks to spread the word. Bush loyalists also were encouraged to post their views in message boards targeting swing-state voters, chat in person and online with would-be voters, and forward the GOP's e-mail call-to-arms to five friends. Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer said the Democrat's supporters are being encouraged to make their views known after the vice presidential debate, especially in light of the what he called "the lesson of 2000," when Al Gore (news - web sites)'s debate performance against George W. Bush suffered from negative buzz after a few days. "What they fail to understand is that spin is worthless if you put in a bad performance during the debate," Singer said. "We were successful after the debate in Miami because John Kerry was successful during the debate." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...03&e=7&u=/ap/20041005/ap_on_el_pr/debate_spin
