Interest has grown in the debates.
I’m enjoying this morning’s reaction all over the place. I listened to the local neocon talk show this morning and the Bush supporters were falling all over themselves to explain away what their eyes had told them last night. To their credit, they didn’t lie about the president’s pathetic appearance. But they kept saying things like “Kerry won the battle but lost the war last night.” They made excuses for Bush, as if his advisors didn’t know the significance of the debates or cannot effectively manage his time. Every attack of Kerry this morning contained more acknowledgment and admiration of him than I’ve ever heard from that camp. Even those asserting it was a tie were not happy with Bush’s performance. They know it went badly, and they know there will be repercussions in the coming days and weeks.
I urge you to listen carefully over the next day or so. You’ll hear it in their criticism of the debate. They won’t say Bush won. They’ll say “Bush didn’t lose.” Or, “Bush didn’t really lose.” Guess what that means in real terms? Bush didn’t win; he lost. Once that sinks in, they’ll simply return to the attacks on Kerry, many of which have lost some sting since last night. You will hear the defeatism that seems built into liberals, but it will be coming from them. Someone stuck a pin in their balloon, and the telltale hissing sound will be in the background for the rest of the campaign.
Among the neocons, one independent called in this morning. He said he was previously leaning toward Bush but was still unsure. After last night, he is still undecided but he has decided this: the debates are going to make up his mind. Kerry has leveraged the position of challenger. People are paying attention now and Bush’s failures will be under the microscope. Not from 30 years ago, from the last 4 years.
That rumble you felt just then was the political season shifting into high gear, and the turbo kicking in.
Posted by James at October 1, 2004 11:25 AMThe debate cheered me up a lot. I hope Bush is savoring the pseudo-satisfaction of not having done worse, because this is going to have been his *best* debate.
Posted by: Julie at October 1, 2004 11:33 AMOh, he's probably savoring. After all, we're talking about a guy who savored being a C student.
This morning on BBC World Update, we heard an interesting story.
It was decided, in that 30+ page agreement, to show only one speaker at a time, and not to show the other's reaction. Well, in some places in the US, Kerry and Bush were shown on split screens, which showed their reactions to the other's words. Apparently, Bush looked perturbed, frustrated, and tense.
HAH!
Listen to the story here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ondemand/rams/tac04396942004.ram
Posted by: Patti M. at October 1, 2004 12:24 PMMost of the networks (including Fox) did show them side-by-side, contrary to the "agreement." I mostly watched on ABC, where you could see that Kerry wrote things down (cuss words? doodles? haikus?) while Bush spoke, but Bush just made faces or stared around blankly when Kerry was speaking.
Showing them side-by-side also made obvious the difference in their heights - something Bush's people apparently wanted to obscure by having them stand far apart.
Posted by: Julie at October 1, 2004 1:03 PMI enjoy listening to how the spinsters were describing the performance: Kerry's people were talking about how he won, which i think most polls agree with. For Bush... there was no "won, loss" it was "He did better than was expected".
Posted by: Brian at October 1, 2004 1:27 PMLIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!! Kerry had the questions in advance!!! The media wants Bush to lose!!
Hey Julie, you might have missed it, but the Daily Show had an exclusive report that John Kerry was, in fact, writing "I am so crushing him" during the debate!
Posted by: Bil at October 1, 2004 1:38 PMLIBERAL MEDIA!!!!!LIBERAL MEDIA!!!!! Kerry had the questions in advance!!! The media wants Bush to lose!!
Hey Julie, you might have missed it, but the Daily Show had an exclusive report that John Kerry was, in fact, writing "I am so crushing him" during the debate!
Posted by: Bil at October 1, 2004 1:38 PMThose freepers are a laugh riot.
Julie: check out the visual comparison, on video:
Posted by: James at October 1, 2004 1:52 PMWhen I look in my crystal ball I see the wingnuts trying to say Bush won, or if the general consensus of the populace refuses to move with them, downplaying the importance of the debates. It wouldn't be the first time they've marginalized the president's failures. "Being a good debater isn't important to the job of the presidency."
Either that or they'll try to divert attention with more dirty BS... Kerry really smacked them around on the flip/flop thing. They may have to take a new tack there.
Posted by: Chuck S. at October 1, 2004 1:56 PMI did see the Daily Show and I don't question their journalistic integrity, but from the intense look of concentration on Kerry's face I really think it was a haiku.
I can't believe it.
I am so crushing that guy.
Get him a Kleenex.
Thanks for the blog link. Those people need to turn in their tinfoil hats. It's been scientifically proven that a tinfoil hat only magnifies the harmful mind-rays and makes you crazier.
Posted by: at October 1, 2004 1:56 PMI listened to the debate on Air America radio while I worked. It was wonderful. I got to see it a bit because people here were watching it on the big tv in the lounge. Canadians in general are more interested in what is happening in the US than most US citizens.
I have found myself on the defensive very often up here. People are very well informed on our issues, it's astounding. I wish more of us at home were that knowledgable. Of course, I know you guys are...
Anyway, it was a slam dunk. And that was the one on world policy! Wait for the domestic one! He'll get slaughtered there.
Who wrote that haiku? Quite good!
I submit one of my own:
Bush stands staring off
hoping this will end quickly
as I take his job.
Sorry, the haiku was me.
And I think Bush should lose about a zillion points for claiming during the debate that he's going to win. Unless he has receipts to *prove* that he's bought all the votes he needs...
Posted by: Julie at October 1, 2004 2:43 PMOoh! Burn!
Posted by: Patti M. at October 1, 2004 3:11 PMby the way. I saw in the Globe this morning that air america is finally going to get on some stations in eastern, MA. 1200 AM out of Framingham and 1430 out of Medford (or as the say in Medford...meh-fah). Probably won't help you folks down south but atleast it'll give me another option on the drive to/from work.
Posted by: B.O.B.(bob) at October 1, 2004 3:15 PMThat's good.
Another instance where freepers (Air America is failing!) have to eat their words. Tie that bib on.
Posted by: James at October 1, 2004 3:19 PMSo I went to the Urban Dictionary to look up "freeper" and found four definitions. I like no. 4 best (see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=FReeper):
A vile, right-wing, hatred-spewing wingnut who is a member of the freerepublic.com forum. No dissent is allowed, users who post even the most mild deviation from the the most extreme neoconservative rhetoric are banned from the site. Limbaugh's fans, "dittoheads", are centrists by comparison. Freepers are particularly obsessed with Bill Clinton's penis.
The group invalidates invalidates political internet polls by repetitive voting in order to skew the results as far right as possible, i.e. "We freeped that poll!" They troll any and all political forums.
See "Borg". Also, "freeped", "to freep". Should always be lowercase.
"Into the mud, freeper scum!"
Posted by: Patti M. at October 1, 2004 3:33 PMThat's right, AAR is up to 33 stations. It was only 16 about six months ago. I'd call doubling in 6 months a failure, wouldn't you?
I heard some Bush campaign spin on the way in to work today. Trying to remember how it went. Basically, they talked about how strong he looked and how he spoke from the heart. And then they painted Kerry's performance in unflattering terms.
Posted by: briwei at October 1, 2004 3:33 PMOne other thought that I heard last night on the follow-up commentary. Allegedly, if there is an uptick of viewership from debate number 1 to debate number 2, that bodes well for Kerry. That would be analogous to Clinton v. Bush I. Typically, interest drops off between the first and the second. So, if Kerry can get more people to tune in and have a repeat performance, there may still be a chance.
Posted by: briwei at October 1, 2004 3:37 PMToday, I heard this clip from the debate where Kerry corrects Bush on who attacked us on 9/11:
MR. LEHRER: Mr. President, new question, two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I would hope I'd never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops. I never -- when I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, I never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and -- ah -- I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.
[...]
MR. LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
SEN. KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and, frankly, very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said the enemy attacked us. Saddam Hussein didn't attack us; Osama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us.
[...]
PRESIDENT BUSH: First, listen --
MR. LEHRER: Thirty seconds.
PRESIDENT BUSH: -- of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.
And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion. We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye. And yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons and he would have made weapons.
Apparently, he does NOT know who attacked us. A-doy!
Posted by: Patti M. at October 1, 2004 3:40 PMHere's something else I just thought of: supposedly in 1960, people who listened to the Nixon/Kennedy debate on the radio thought that Nixon won because he sounded good, but people who watched on TV thought he lost because he looked so flustered and unkempt.
I only listened to most of last night's debate, and thought Bush sounded awful. Better than in the past, but still bad. And when I looked at the TV, he looked even worse than he sounded.
While I'm glad that Kerry did so well last night (and is getting credit for it), I'm still flummoxed by Bush's alleged debate "wins" in 2000. Maybe this signals a change of heart for the media as well, because they're not tripping all over themselves to complement Bush on his brilliant permformance of not peeing his pants onstage.
I wonder if the smirking chimp will get his face under control in time for the next debate.
Posted by: Julie at October 1, 2004 4:46 PMOk. Listening to the debate I kept remembering an SNL skit where they imagined what the first presidential address would be like from Bush (Will Ferell) or Gore. Gore's white house looked pristine and clinical, and he had a room full of computers.
Bush's whitehouse was on fire, his desk a mess, and he kept saying "This is HARD!" over and over again. It was classic, but who knew it was so prescient?
Posted by: rui at October 1, 2004 6:22 PMRui - great point! That was a great skit.
I wonder if it's on the net somewhere.
Posted by: James at October 1, 2004 9:13 PMI loved that bit! Ferrell made a terrific Dubya. I taped SNL last night in the hopes of more good political stuff with respect to the campaign. Anyone care to comment on whether it is worth my time?
Posted by: briwei at October 3, 2004 11:22 AMGOtta jet, but we watched SNL last night and the political stuff was worth a laugh. Fast-forward over Debbie Downer, though. And Nelly.
The "news" was a mixed bag.
Posted by: James at October 3, 2004 11:52 AMoh, man, if you can find that, please point me to it. I want to show it to a few people here.
Posted by: Rui at October 5, 2004 1:58 PMApparently, we've talked about this before. I found this through Google:
http://www.drmomentum.com/aces/archives/000866.html
Posted by: James at October 5, 2004 2:15 PMHere's a transcript, at least:
http://snltranscripts.jt.org/00/00dglimpse1.phtml