BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?

Subject: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 10:56 PM

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Cruiser
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:14 PM

Kerry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:22 PM

Don't know. Bush was a lot more conscious this time - he was speaking clearer, had more energy and was less surprised. Nothing new on points about Iraq. Kerry had more facts, Bush had more spin. Bush was more on the defense, Kerry on the offense. Bush demonstrated a lack of much knowledge about stem cell research and got hammered on the economy. The winner was probably whoever a person favors, unless facts are important to them.

It still kills me when Bush talks about Kerry being a tax-and-spend liberal and almost immediately launches into a speil about how he wants to budget $X billion for this, and $X billion for that. But there will be more tax cuts. Your basic spend-and-spend-more economic policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:27 PM

Yeah, the winner was he whom a person already favours. :-) That's the way it generally goes. It would be hard to find someone genuinely neutral out there at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:28 PM

Depends on if any undecided voter was swayed by an answer.

My bid for worst bobbled answer by Bush: drugs imported from Canada

But I suspect hardly any ground was gained by either.

I wish Kerry had taken the opportunity to frame the Iraq war entry question as a question of trust:

"I voted for the authorization to use force since I trusted the President to make the right choice, to only go to war as a last resort. I learned I was wrong to trust him to make the right decisions."

"You should not trust him either."'

But Kerry didn't say this. Oh well.



Third debate may be different--domestic policy only----Kerry's strong suit, Bush's weakest

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:28 PM

The question is not who "won," because that is meaningless in this context. The 90% plus of the population that is already firmly in favor of one or the other will not be moved a bit by either's performance, their adherance to or violation of the rules of the "debate," or the opinions of the various media talking heads.

The real question is which one was more likely to have had a positive effect on the undecided voters? The answer to that, I think, is Mr. Bush. He corrected his more obvious errors from the initial debate (ie, no smirks or looks of disgust were visible) and I think he did a better job of working the crowd. He also received a number of questions that led directly into some of his more practiced stump comments. Mr. Kerry missed several opportunities; for example, he could have killed the entire $87 million question if he had addressed that topic more completely.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:38 PM

I am just tired of BOTH of them chanting the same catch phrases & sound bytes over & over & over. I basically agree with Kerry's positions, but for crimineys sakes, there are better and clearer and more creative ways to SAY some of those things!....I know, I know...he has to 'stay on message' for those who CAN'T follow a train of thought beyond two sentences, but at least he made a FEW new points tonight, especially clarifying at last a *position* about stem cells, abortion and taxes. Now, if Kerry would figure out how to explain that stupid statics about how and how often he voted don't prove diddley-squat!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:39 PM

artbrooks is dead right. Particularly on the $87 million question (may be the $64,000 question of the campaign), Kerry skimped on the answer. I think he did give it but he whipped through it so fast that if you didn't already know, you wouldn't learn it.

My understanding is that Kerry first voted for the $87 million because the plan was it would be funded by a rollback of the tax cut on upper incomes. Then when he found it would come out of general revenues, thus add to the deficit, and not touch the upper incomes, he voted against it.

Is that your reading?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: artbrooks
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:44 PM

Pretty much, Ron, and FactCheck.org has a pretty good article on it (down at the bottom of this link).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:46 PM

Ron, I wish Kerry had you coaching him; that was a very well put response!

I thought Bush was totally unprepared for questions about the environment and drugs from Canada. I am disappointed that neither of them said anything about Social Security.

The pundits are saying men will admire the way Bush stepped on Gibson with his answers. I think he was just plain rude and should have been called to task.

Not that it matters, but Kerry looked presidential, imo. Bush looked like a smarmy kid who crowed when he thought he'd one-upped the other guy on the playground.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Amergin
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:50 PM

I heard it on the radio...and I was clearly impressed with Kerry....Bush still sounded like an opinionated git.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:55 PM

Thanks so much, Kat.

Maybe one of his advisors will find a way to work some variation of that approach into Kerry's stump speech, which as Bill D. pointed out, is a little tired.

But at least it's not as tired as Bush's stump speech, which has fallen asleep.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM

http://blog.johnkerry.com/ ...for better answers than I can give to some of the questions...

I still want Kerry to use the line.." some Iraqis may be better off with Saddam gone, but ask yourself whether The World is! The world is filled with MORE strife, conflict, hate, confusion, death and frustration because Bush chose bad reasons, a bad way and bad time to deal with Saddam."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Deda
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:05 AM

cbs, abc and nbc websites all say Kerry beat Bush. EVEN FOX NEWS has Kerry winning handily -- presumably based on people voting on line!!

I thought Kerry did well, but it seemed a lot closer than the first one. Kerry's biggest missed opportunity was on the question to Bush about whether he'd made any mistakes. He basically just didn't answer, because he really doesn't believe he has. Kerry responded by pointing out a bunch of Bush's mistakes, but I think it might have been more effective if he had just emphasized the fact that Bush has no capacity to answer that question -- which is incredibly telling.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:09 AM

Absolutely, Bill.

Just before Bush invaded Iraq I called the White House comment line and told them the war would be a hideous mistake because for every dead woman or child broadcast on al-Jazeera, there would be at least one more terrorist. Since then Bush has arranged for quite a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:14 AM

You're right, Deda. Sometimes it seems that if Bush ever admitted a mistake, he'd disappear in a cloud of smoke.

Wish we could arrange that. Well, the election should have a similar result.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: frogprince
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:17 AM

I thought another striking moment was when Kerry put his stance on abortion very clearly, saying he personally disapproves of it, but knows he has no right to deny women the constitutional right, and Bush looked dazed and said "I'm still trying to decipher that"

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 01:13 AM

Two thoughts: Bush looked like a hothead, while Kerry looked self-contained and confident.

And - I'm puzzled by the Americans who think that a folksy, down-home good-ol'-boy Texan is a good representative for the most powerful country in the world in this age of globalization. I've actually heard of some people criticizing Kerry because he speaks French, is at home in a European setting, and has travelled extensively. Isn't it a good idea to have a president who is sophisticated, intelligent and well-educated, whose experience and expertise is not limited to the US? As I understand it, before Bush became president, he hadn't travelled outside the US at all -- except across the Texas border to Mexico.

Apparently Bush pulled a real hick routine at Buckingham Palace -- if I were an American, I would be very, very embarrassed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST,Bo
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 02:04 AM

Ditto artbrooks above that debates are not "won" or "lost" like a wrestling match - only everyone wins or loses depending on the amount and quality of information gained from the debate. I have actually been impressed that there is substantive content to these debates rather than the "sound-bite-fest" in other years. I thought both of them presented their cases well - no major gaffes or "slick" attempts to play to the camera (enough of that with Reagan and Clinton). I agree that mostly your pre-conceptions will dictate the "outcome".

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 02:09 AM

Well...

I think (as an undecided, American living abroad) who has been watching and waffling throughout this campaign, Kerry won on one very important point. He emphasized the greatness of the entrepeneural spirit, has faith in the people and in the constitution of the United States. He wants to lead America back into the limelight.   

He may have lost the righteous right on the abortion question, but he gained many of those undecided, single, women as well.

He lost the upper income group - oh well (they're the minority)

...but he won the seniors and the youth and most of all, the undecided.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:05 AM

A friend who watched it said that he felt Kerry won because his closing remarks were a heckuva lot more substantive that the things Bush said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:17 AM

I forgot to mention that Bush looked like kid hopping around, and name dropping and snatching at his title of "war president" to defend his right to the next term. I was also amazed at how he made furtive attempts to appear to be taking notes.

Whats with the ear? Has he had an ear job or something. One of his ears looks fake. Actually, both look a bit synthetic but one of them looked absolutely plastic.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:58 AM

Dianavan, are you speaking of his right ear? It struck me that I had never noticed before that it was shaped that way.

The group with whom I watched the debate said the lumpiness on Bush's back was from a bulletproof vest he was wearing. I imagine that's true, but there was a curious square shape outlined just above his shoulder blades. Just looked out of place.

Subject: Bush in my house??
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:28 AM

The pundits keep saying that the majority of Americans like him more and would prefer to have him intheir home.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I can honestly say the thought gives me cold shivers.

The pundits keep saying he's likable. To me he comes across as arrogant and condescending. He says the simplest, most mundane things as if they were pearls of wisdom then he smirks at you as if he thinks you are stupid. In the two debates he was just rude. Tonight he ran over the moderator's words like a freight train, breaking the rules that James Baker has negotiated to protect him.

Chris Matthew's said he thought that showed strength.

Kerry showed strength by pointing accusingly at Bush.

The pundits said he was too prosecutorial...

The incident does show the most important difference between the two men.

Kerry was mad at Bush and went after Bush. Bush was mad at Kerry and went after the moderator. Does that remind you of any current events?

What is it about this man that people like? I really don't get it!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 04:46 AM

I also noticed that Kerry's closing words included a thank-you and a show of respect for President Bush. Bush, on the other hand, was so rattled that he completely forgot to even acknowledge Kerry, let alone thank him.

And yes, I do think it was his right ear, Ebbie. At first I thought he had his ears "pinned" surgically for cosmetic reasons. Then I realized that they were shiny and sort of sharp and wierd looking. Then I noticed that one was bigger and looked like a plastic replica.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: kendall
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 05:48 AM

Bush kept carping on "consistency" being important in a president. This is what Ralph Waldo Emerson said about that:
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."

The fact that Bush is unable to change according to changing conditions reminds me of one of the theories of why the dinosaurs died out, they were unable to cope with a changing world.

As to admitting mistakes, that seems to be a fault of MOST politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 05:53 AM

Honey, we'll know who "won" on November 2nd.

I just posted my absentee ballot yesterday and did something I've never done before...

I prayed.


When I told this to a friend, he asked me "So, who exactly did you pray TO?"






I said, "Whoever was listening."


..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Amergin
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 07:18 AM

Well I'm listening....so you were praying to me?

*BG*

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST,JB
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 08:07 AM

Two very good points noted here:

1) Frogprince

"I'm still trying to decipher that" Yes that`s what Bush said after Kerry made a very good and eloquent case on the abortion issue. I guess that`s what he is often tying to do.

2 Dinavan

I agree about this thing about name dropping. I hate it when Bush does this to create the impression he is on best terms with all the big names. In the first debate it was Putin-Waldimir this and Waldmir that as if the guys were golfing buddies. What pure hypocrisy. However the satisfying is that there are people out there like you who can see through all this shite!

JB Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 08:52 AM

Both Bush and Kerry are equally bad when it comes to foreign policy, about that there is no doubt. Both are running on a "stay the course" platform on Iraq and the "war on terror", and both sound very much like imperial presidents with designs on other sovereign nations, when it is "in America's interests".

On the domestic front, Kerry's performance was much worse than even I, a progressive left, non-partisan independent, expected of him. It's a no brainer with Bush, he's awful, and there is no defending him. That is a given. But this political performance (I refuse to call these staged political events debates) was just one more rehash of canned, rehearsed, scripted political rhetoric from both men.

But Kerry's performance was really disturbing to me. He looked and sounded frighteningly underprepared on the domestic side. He stumbled badly on the questions about stem cell research AND his supposed strong suit, the environment. I was completely and utterly depressed after watching it, thinking that John Kerry is what we will get as an improvement over Bush. Utterly depressed.

Kerry is awful. Awful on health care. Awful on consumer protections (ie his coming out in favor of tort reform, and possibly liability limits). And excuse me, but if this man's strongest platform is the environment, god help us all. He said absolutely nothing about what needs to be done, what will be done, what won't be done.

It is beyond belief to me that Kerry is even registered as a Democrat. His platforms and positions on the issues are all Republican, all the time.

Where is the mention of the Wall Street scandals? Of Enron? Of the California energy scandal? Of the raping of the American West? Of the theft of the US water supply for energy companies? Where is the discussion on the need for universal, single payer health insurance? Where is the discussion of helping families with child care expenses, and not just college tuition, which is now a luxury no working class families can afford? Why no discussion of the nasty trade laws that have been passed to make outsourcing the new way of doing America's business? Why no discussion of the negative impacts of global trade on our foreign policy and abysmally low standing in the eyes of the world?

Why is there no discussion of the bedrock Democratic issues in this election?

I can't stand the idea of four years of Kerry, any more than I can stand the idea of four more years of Bush. Both men are working against the interests of the United States, and for the interests of their corporate masters. The only differences in their agendas is who is buying and paying for their candidacies.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 09:03 AM

You just never quit, do you, GUEST? You are still so bitter that your guy never got out of the blocks.

RON DAVIES a very large reason that Kerry voted against the $87 million was the $20 million portion of it that was, in essence, a slush fund. He was concerned that it had no checks/balances on it and would be used to reward friends, such as Halliburton.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 10:20 AM

Typical lame Big Mick attack the messenger tactic. Hoping it will deflect attention from the fact that "your guy" is just as much an abomination as Bush?

Well, if you get your way Big Mick, and Kerry is the next president of the US, rest assured a few of us indies will be right here to make sure you eat all the shit words you've been talking in support of "your guy" to win back the crown.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 10:30 AM

I am fairly breathless with anticipation.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 10:36 AM

You are obviously busy with a little light stalking of me in the threads this morning, Mick, as per usual with you. Also as usual, your insistence that my opinions must be attacked by you, while people expressing the same opinion as me don't get attacked by you because...?

Oh right, you are still holding a grudge and hell bent on keeping up your personal vendetta. So admirable, your vengeful side.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 10:47 AM

Guest, you remind me a little of another ANON.GUEST we had visiting awhile back. His/her suggestion was that Mr. Bush should be allowed to win, because 4 more years of him was the only way to guarantee that a truly "progressive" movement could get in, legally or by violent overthrow. Sorry, but I believe that Mr. Kerry should be given his opportunity, and I really don't agree that he and Mr. Bush are essentially interchangable.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:01 AM

This GUEST, artbrooks, has a persecution complex. S/he thinks s/he should be allowed to take positions without being held accountable. Her/his theory that I stalk him/her can be disproved by simply noticing how many times I have not attacked his/her position. It's just when s/he jumps in to try and spin so that GWB can be re-elected that I jump in.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:05 AM

Their positions on Iraq and the war on terror are identical. Kerry's so-called plan doesn't offer one single difference in tactics from the Bush plan. It is merely a question of which candidate do you believe will be able to "internationalize" America's imperial wars around the globe.

Make no mistake: Kerry is a hawk, and Kerry has said repeatedly he will stay the Bush course, and that he intends to pursue the same unilateral and pre-emptive military policies now known as the Bush Doctrine.

Anyone who believes that Kerry isn't a military hawk that supports the Iraq war, the war on terror, and a pre-emptive unilateral military policy is deluding themselves, in order to justify voting for Kerry.

The so-called liberal left in this country is engaged in a massive campaign of self-deception, in order to justify their hatred of the right wing Republicans who have successfully stolen power from the wishy washy Republicratic party. Kerry is their current emperor with no clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:39 AM

OK, Guest, we all know what you are against but what are you for? I have specific questions for you. I am not looking for Nader's view here, I am looking for you.

Your disdain of the military and anyone who served in it is well documented. Given that you hate militarism, how would you deal with threats to this nation and its society? Name your poison, from Soviet Union to Al Qaeda, what would be your solution for those that seek to destroy our nation?

Speaking of Al Qaeda, how would you have responded to 9/11? Or to any attack on the US? How would you resolve it?

I agree that we should never have been in Iraq to begin with. But now that we are there, how would you suggest we withdraw? Should we just leave it and let the bloodbath begin? Do we leave without reconstruction? Or do we try to rebuild the infrastructure that this sad little man has destroyed?

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:48 AM

Mick, that's great information (regarding the $ 87 million). Hope Kerry starts saying it on the campaign trail--should defuse one of Bush's favorite lines.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Fishpicker
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:49 AM

The fact is, the first liar doesn't have a chance. I would have to base my choice, when entering the voting booth, on which one of these guys has done more to destroy my constitutional and civil rights-----------------that is going to be an easy choice!
This country is in desperate need of a viable third party!

                            FP

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:53 AM

Ron, he did say it in the debate last night, but the media kind of glossed over it.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:27 PM

I am not a pacifist. I am deeply opposed to militarism, especially US militarism. In the wake of 9/11, I opposed the invasion of Afghanistan as a "solution" to the US being attacked by terrorists. The invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrow of the Taliban WILL NOT stop terrorist attacks against the US at home or abroad. The invasion of Afghanistan was all about vengeance, just like the war on Iraq is about vengeance. And that is why the majority of Americans, who are very militaristic, and broadly defend the US' imperialist policies, are behind those wars on innocent Afghan and Iraqi civilians.

The current wave of vengeful militarism being pursued by the US may well result in the downfall of our nation. The proper response to 9/11 was to send out the Special Forces to actually take out Bin Laden, once we were convinced that it was Al Qaida that attacked us, with or without the cooperation of the nations which are harboring him and the Al Qaida network: Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Invading and occupying two sovereign nations that were not connected to the attacks on the US WAS NOT the right response to 9/11. "Harboring terrorists" was a lame, pathetic excuse to pursue the Bush Doctrine of unilateral, pre-emptive, unprovoked invasions and occupations of sovereign nations in violation of international law and the UN charter. The only meaningful result is the US waging imperial wars in other peoples' nations, to maintain the US grip on the world oil supply.

Vengeance for 9/11 was the justification for bombing the hell out of people who had nothing to do with the attacks. That isn't a sound military policy rooted in the concepts of self-defense, nor was it a sound military solution to the threat of attack by Islamic terrorists. They'll be back, and with a vengeance to match our own.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. And both Bush and Kerry are using that tactic as if it were legitimate and sound military self-defense. It isn't. Not only is Iraq much more dangerous now than it was with Saddam contained and neutralized, but the entire world is now teetering on the brink of destruction of the leading democracies, all in the pursuit of militaristic vengeance, and an American thirst for Muslim blood which is every bit as horrific as the Islamic terrorists' thirst for American blood.

There are millions of ways to protect the US and and the world's interests in the Middle East, but neither Bush nor Kerry are talking about them. They both are talking about maintaining the corporate militarism strategy status quo, to keep control of the world's oil supply as it begins to run out. They could care less about the death and damage that wreaks on the peoples and environment of the Middle East. Or Nigeria. Or Venezuela. Or Russia.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:40 PM

OK, I am with you that we had no business attacking Iraq, but I differ with you on the issue of those that harbor and support a terror network. I must admit to being surprised at your position of using Special Forces operatives to take out Bin Laden. But what about the martyr effect? When another steps up to take Osama's place, do we wait for the next attack? Or is it better to fight them on other shores? I think that building a worldwide coalition against terrorism, where ever it exists, is the key. Sometimes we must create polar positions. I would hold Israel to the same standard that I hold the Palestinians. I think one can create a set of standards that are embraced by the world community, and use it to hold nation states accountable.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:54 PM

Damn straight this country needs third party participation, Fishpicker. But as long as the corporados own and operate the duopoly, and thereby the government, they won't be allowing any third party candidates to participate. Look at how the Democratic party has interfered with Nader even being legally put on the ballot? Or how about the idea of including the candidates from the largest third parties to participate in the debates? Fat chance of that! Not in the wake of Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura!

If Nader had been allowed to run a campaign without the legal intereference from the Democrats, and to participate in the debates, it is conceivable he could have pulled as many or more votes as Perot did when he got 18%. But no political party in power will ever allow a new party/independent candidate to succeed in bringing about true reform of a corrupt political system.

Northern Ireland is the perfect example of how reformist political parties get treated by the status quo political parties.

We saw in Ireland just how fast a legitimate political party can wreak havoc among the status quo politicians, when Sinn Fein was allowed to function as a regular political party, and started giving the pathetically wishy washy SDLP and Alliance parties at the polls. The result has been a circling of the wagons between the Brits, the Unionists, the SDLP, and the Alliance party in the North, and Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, and Labour party in the South, to keep Sinn Fein from making any political inroads north or south.

Which has also resulted in a decade long stalemate in the peace process, being effectively blocked by the mainstream political parties.

Same thing is happening here in the US. Neither Republicrats or Dempublicans will risk allowing for a dynamic where a third party or independent candidate could win the way Jesse Ventura won in Minnesota--which was to win the office by splitting the vote three ways, instead of two, and squeaking in with a handful more votes than the other two guys by capitalizing on widespread discontent among traditional non-voters who get energized when an outsider galvanizes public opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 01:02 PM

The answer is to fight terrorism with economic justice, democratic fairness, and equitable treatment of all the world's citizens, not militarism and high tech weaponry. The answer is to stop propping up despots in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, just so our global capitalists can get in and exploit ther nations' cheap labor and resources. The answer is to stop the war on the third world by the first world, by forcing the first world to change it's exploitative, regressive, destructive, and greedy ways through peaceful means, like the ballot box, supporting political dissent in the first world, instead of trying to bury it, which is what the liberal Democrats in all the world's so-called democracies are doing right now. Put fucking Israel in it's place, and pull the US funding plug of their military, and give the Palestinians a homeland RIGHT NOW. Pull out of Iraq RIGHT NOW.

There are a million things to do to make the Middle East and the world, including the US, safer from Islamic terrorism. But that isn't what the Republicrat and Dempublican leadership of the US has planned. It's more oil wars and war profiteering as far as the eye can see, as long as we, the citizens of the US, keep giving them the power to do it every four years without making a peep, allowing for protest and dissent, or, god forbid, working for parties and candidates who would actually REFORM our corrupt political system of governance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 01:47 PM

I agree with your last post, GUEST.

I do hate it when Kerry says he has a PLAN because I am not really sure what that plan is. To his credit, it seems that he is willing to open dialogue and try to restore U.S. credibility.

I, too, believe that reform is necessary. Bush thinks reform means stripping people of their human rights. I don't think Kerry agrees with that. I'd rather see Kerry in there than Bush. Nobody else has a chance. If Kerry is a good lawyer, he will defend the U.S. constitution and allow freedom of speech, freedom of moverment and the right to assembly. He hasn't been tested yet but for God's sake, give him a try.

We know Bush doesn't support those freedoms.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:01 PM

There is nothing credible about the world's largest military bullying the rest of the world to remain in control of the oil, even if it is what drives the world's largest economy's engine.

The idea of a US senator who voted for the Patriot Act, defending the US constitution, is a joke, lawyer or not. And there is no reason why we should "give him a try". We already have his Senate record, and most especially his recent Senate record in which he supported every single major Bush legislative initiative, to go by.

We will NEVER reform the current corrupt system, by voting to maintain the status quo of the current corrupt system. You all need to take your status quo, inside the blinkered thinking box blinders off, and put your true reform minded thinking caps on.

Kerry and the corrupt Democratic party is NOT the answer to what ails the US. No matter how much those of you voting for Kerry wish to make it so.

You all sound very Peter Pan-ish naive. The only thing that will change the current path of destruction the US duopoly is being driven down by it's corporate masters, is a revolution at the ballot box.

And Kerry ain't no electoral revolutionary.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: Once Famous
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:03 PM

Who is "We? dianavan? Everybody? I think it mostly just you speaking as an American ex-patriot.

I did not see the debate last night. I'm picking up from various reputable source what happened.

I was doing what most musicians I would think like to do on a Friday night. Playing and singing with other fine musicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:21 PM

Kerry supporters need to ask themselves a few simple questions. Does your government consider you less of an American than you were four years ago? Did you personally do anything to deserve a demotion to second class citizenship? Did the Democrats stand up for you when your civil rights were assaulted? Did Kerry or Edwards utter a word in your defense?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Kerry Debate II: Who won?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:22 PM

Bush came across as whiney and petulant. But then that seems to be his normal style so far as I can see, and yet people keep on saying that he's such a likable guy, and that this is his strongest appeal to the American public, so it most be that that kind of guy is the sort of guy that a lot of Americans actually find likable.

Like Jack the Sailor, I find that very disquieting. That's likable? "He's the sort of guy you'd like to come to your barbecue" they keep saying. Not my barbedue, tat;s for sure. And that isn't about politics - I can just about imagine how some people might like his politics. What I can't get my head round is how anyone could like the man. (Or rather, the character he has created for public consumption, which I suspect may well bears little relation to the reality.)