...currently reading.....
Kristin Lavransdatter, by Sigrid Undset...last read.....
Trout, by Ray BergmanEmbed? Win!
Fantastic Contraption
Powered by: MySpace Games >br?
Friday, October 01, 2004
THE DEBATE..
The reactions of "analysts" have been pretty mixed about the debate last night. Sure, neither one of the candidates really delivered a "knockout" blow, but did we expect that? Did we expect John Kerry to produce the transcripts from Tricky Dick's meeting with the energy industry? Did we expect Bush to pull some Kerry-hating swift boat veterans out of his pocket?
Of course, you can't "win" a debate, in that when it's over, the audience votes on who gets to be the President. But....
Who "won" the debate?
The CNN/Gallup Poll
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37
CBS Poll:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30
ABC POLL:
Kerry: 45
Bush: 36
Tie: 17
An unofficial, unscientific CNN poll I looked at this morning actually gave Kery 71%, and Bush only 21%. I think it's pretty clear what people watching the debate thought.
Moreover, on a simple question of who performed better - who was more "Presidential" - I don't see how there could even be a question. John Kerry looked statesmanlike and Presidential, was calm and well- but plain-spoken, and he took full advantage of the time allotted him to make intelligent, decisive, and worthy comments. Bush, on the other hand, hunched over the lecturn and seemed nervous; he was on the defensive from the start (not unusual for him). He talked incredibly slowly, and stumbled over his words often, even though he rarely said any word with more than 2 syllables, or any sentence containing more than about 6 words, and looked, as one commentator pointed out, as if he was praying for his time to run out faster. In contrast to the image that the Bush campaign has tried to paint of Kerry, he answered questions directly, concisely, and with clarity. Bush answered nearly every question by talking about how Kerry was sending mixed messages to our troops, and how that was no way to win a war. Also, there were all these really long, awkward silences, which might have seemed like digified pauses, except that 1) you could tell his brain was like some neglected old car, trying and trying to start on a cold winter day, and 2) when he did finally speak, what he said was, almost without exception, inane and immature. I felt like Bush thought he was addressing a class of 8th graders.
I wonder whether Bush's "handlers" thought it would be a good idea for him attempt some humor, or if that was his own brilliant, off-the-cuff idea? It seems unwise to try to tell jokes when the audience isn't allowed to laugh. I mean, I was laughing, but only at his discomfort after he discovered that nobody was going to laugh at his attempted humor. Those uncomfortable, pregnant pauses following his 'jokes,' when he was sitting there with that pained expression on his face, in disbelief that nobody was laughing, were hilarious.
Oh. And also, Bush shouldn't laugh in public. Because when he does, and you hear that awful, nerdy laugh, you realize that it's not even as though he's the loud-mouthed, bullying, spoiled brat America generally thinks he is; rather, he was the kid that sat in the back row of your 7th grade Social Studies class eating his boogers and making fart noises.
I might be slightly biased, though.
-m
The reactions of "analysts" have been pretty mixed about the debate last night. Sure, neither one of the candidates really delivered a "knockout" blow, but did we expect that? Did we expect John Kerry to produce the transcripts from Tricky Dick's meeting with the energy industry? Did we expect Bush to pull some Kerry-hating swift boat veterans out of his pocket?
Of course, you can't "win" a debate, in that when it's over, the audience votes on who gets to be the President. But....
Who "won" the debate?
The CNN/Gallup Poll
Kerry: 53
Bush: 37
CBS Poll:
Kerry: 44
Bush: 26
Tie: 30
ABC POLL:
Kerry: 45
Bush: 36
Tie: 17
An unofficial, unscientific CNN poll I looked at this morning actually gave Kery 71%, and Bush only 21%. I think it's pretty clear what people watching the debate thought.
Moreover, on a simple question of who performed better - who was more "Presidential" - I don't see how there could even be a question. John Kerry looked statesmanlike and Presidential, was calm and well- but plain-spoken, and he took full advantage of the time allotted him to make intelligent, decisive, and worthy comments. Bush, on the other hand, hunched over the lecturn and seemed nervous; he was on the defensive from the start (not unusual for him). He talked incredibly slowly, and stumbled over his words often, even though he rarely said any word with more than 2 syllables, or any sentence containing more than about 6 words, and looked, as one commentator pointed out, as if he was praying for his time to run out faster. In contrast to the image that the Bush campaign has tried to paint of Kerry, he answered questions directly, concisely, and with clarity. Bush answered nearly every question by talking about how Kerry was sending mixed messages to our troops, and how that was no way to win a war. Also, there were all these really long, awkward silences, which might have seemed like digified pauses, except that 1) you could tell his brain was like some neglected old car, trying and trying to start on a cold winter day, and 2) when he did finally speak, what he said was, almost without exception, inane and immature. I felt like Bush thought he was addressing a class of 8th graders.
I wonder whether Bush's "handlers" thought it would be a good idea for him attempt some humor, or if that was his own brilliant, off-the-cuff idea? It seems unwise to try to tell jokes when the audience isn't allowed to laugh. I mean, I was laughing, but only at his discomfort after he discovered that nobody was going to laugh at his attempted humor. Those uncomfortable, pregnant pauses following his 'jokes,' when he was sitting there with that pained expression on his face, in disbelief that nobody was laughing, were hilarious.
Oh. And also, Bush shouldn't laugh in public. Because when he does, and you hear that awful, nerdy laugh, you realize that it's not even as though he's the loud-mouthed, bullying, spoiled brat America generally thinks he is; rather, he was the kid that sat in the back row of your 7th grade Social Studies class eating his boogers and making fart noises.
I might be slightly biased, though.
-m
Comments:
It was as if Bush had crammed for an exam and wanted to get to all of the answers that he knew first.
Bush reminded me of the Advanced GIS students who stayed up all night finishing their analysis and then putting the PowerPoint presentation together starting at 6am. I remember those guys delaying and delaying and then spending 24 hours in the lab the day before the presentation. They are always willing to go first, because they could barely keep their eyes open during the other presentations. (I actually dropped a presentation by a whole letter grade because the participants fell asleep during the rest of the class.)
For some reason, I found myself on Limbaugh's web page and was reading his thoughts. (I think a search brought me to his brother's web-page, davidlimbaugh.com, but I cannot remember what I was searching for.) Anyhow, if you care what Rush thinks, he mentioned that Bush did adequate during the first 1/2 hour (made our minimum expecations of his public speaking ability). Then, the tide changed in the middle, and by the last 1/2 hour, it was obvious that Kerry was the one with momentum, and Bush just wanted it to end. His final comment was, without a knockout blow, will anyone change their minds from such a scripted format.
This blog mentioned the 32-page MOU last week. In it the agreement is that no footage would be used for commercials, etc. Before the weekend started, we have a commercial that ends “I’m John Kerry and I approved this message” that shows Bush's hilarious grimaces and facial gaffs. The johnkerry.com web page shows these commercials, so it is not a case of the DNC doing something beyond KerryEdwards control, he obviously endorses this violation. So, he is cheating, and BIG DEAL.
That agreement is the most pathetic stranglehold on public discourse and I hope they just toss it into the trashcan before the next debate. Let them directly address each other, let them get mad, let them sweat. THAT is more presidential, (I am speaking about both candidates here).
Those public opinion polls about who won the debate are also flawed. If I were to give them grades, Kerry would get an 87% and Bush gets a 65%. (Bush showed up, was dressed appropriately, and answered all of the questions -- minimum expectations.) It should not amaze you that 30% think that Bush won, over 90% of that thought are the people who support him and cannot see Kerry as a winner. To rephrase my point, and to combat your assertion, you CAN win a debate. It is just like boxing, a panel watches and keeps track of each jab and parry. At the end, a tally is presented and the decision is made. (The modern interpretation of this is to see the editorial section of the major newspapers, Posts, Chronicles, Times, Observers, you name it, and tally their declarations.)
So, who won? Obviously Kerry won. If he had lost, then the next two debates would actually have been pointless. His campaign would have been over, DOA. He had the most to gain, and Bush had the most to lose. It actually amazes me how many in conventional wisdom (Washington Post comes to mind) that think it was a split-decision, a draw! Come on! Kerry is practically debating a retard. What is even more amazing is that he did NOT score a knock-out. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw as a kid, with a bigger opponent boxing Droopy. (You know, that dog with the sad slow voice.) Through dumb luck, the foe really couldn't score a good hit and was really just getting in his own way, and Droopy somehow made it through.
Bush's handlers will take note and will definitely correct his course the next time. (I like to think of Bush's handlers wearing lab coats and taking him out of his cage and dressing him up. I like seeing chimps in diapers.) Kerry may be able to score a knock-out punch in the next two debates, but it will be much harder. He lost a major opportunity in the first debate.
But in the end, will anyone change their mind based on these debates?
--gh
Bush reminded me of the Advanced GIS students who stayed up all night finishing their analysis and then putting the PowerPoint presentation together starting at 6am. I remember those guys delaying and delaying and then spending 24 hours in the lab the day before the presentation. They are always willing to go first, because they could barely keep their eyes open during the other presentations. (I actually dropped a presentation by a whole letter grade because the participants fell asleep during the rest of the class.)
For some reason, I found myself on Limbaugh's web page and was reading his thoughts. (I think a search brought me to his brother's web-page, davidlimbaugh.com, but I cannot remember what I was searching for.) Anyhow, if you care what Rush thinks, he mentioned that Bush did adequate during the first 1/2 hour (made our minimum expecations of his public speaking ability). Then, the tide changed in the middle, and by the last 1/2 hour, it was obvious that Kerry was the one with momentum, and Bush just wanted it to end. His final comment was, without a knockout blow, will anyone change their minds from such a scripted format.
This blog mentioned the 32-page MOU last week. In it the agreement is that no footage would be used for commercials, etc. Before the weekend started, we have a commercial that ends “I’m John Kerry and I approved this message” that shows Bush's hilarious grimaces and facial gaffs. The johnkerry.com web page shows these commercials, so it is not a case of the DNC doing something beyond KerryEdwards control, he obviously endorses this violation. So, he is cheating, and BIG DEAL.
That agreement is the most pathetic stranglehold on public discourse and I hope they just toss it into the trashcan before the next debate. Let them directly address each other, let them get mad, let them sweat. THAT is more presidential, (I am speaking about both candidates here).
Those public opinion polls about who won the debate are also flawed. If I were to give them grades, Kerry would get an 87% and Bush gets a 65%. (Bush showed up, was dressed appropriately, and answered all of the questions -- minimum expectations.) It should not amaze you that 30% think that Bush won, over 90% of that thought are the people who support him and cannot see Kerry as a winner. To rephrase my point, and to combat your assertion, you CAN win a debate. It is just like boxing, a panel watches and keeps track of each jab and parry. At the end, a tally is presented and the decision is made. (The modern interpretation of this is to see the editorial section of the major newspapers, Posts, Chronicles, Times, Observers, you name it, and tally their declarations.)
So, who won? Obviously Kerry won. If he had lost, then the next two debates would actually have been pointless. His campaign would have been over, DOA. He had the most to gain, and Bush had the most to lose. It actually amazes me how many in conventional wisdom (Washington Post comes to mind) that think it was a split-decision, a draw! Come on! Kerry is practically debating a retard. What is even more amazing is that he did NOT score a knock-out. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw as a kid, with a bigger opponent boxing Droopy. (You know, that dog with the sad slow voice.) Through dumb luck, the foe really couldn't score a good hit and was really just getting in his own way, and Droopy somehow made it through.
Bush's handlers will take note and will definitely correct his course the next time. (I like to think of Bush's handlers wearing lab coats and taking him out of his cage and dressing him up. I like seeing chimps in diapers.) Kerry may be able to score a knock-out punch in the next two debates, but it will be much harder. He lost a major opportunity in the first debate.
But in the end, will anyone change their mind based on these debates?
--gh
It was as if Bush had crammed for an exam and wanted to get to all of the answers that he knew first.
Bush reminded me of the Advanced GIS students who stayed up all night finishing their analysis and then putting the PowerPoint presentation together starting at 6am. I remember those guys delaying and delaying and then spending 24 hours in the lab the day before the presentation. They are always willing to go first, because they could barely keep their eyes open during the other presentations. (I actually dropped a presentation by a whole letter grade because the participants fell asleep during the rest of the class.)
For some reason, I found myself on Limbaugh's web page and was reading his thoughts. (I think a search brought me to his brother's web-page, davidlimbaugh.com, but I cannot remember what I was searching for.) Anyhow, if you care what Rush thinks, he mentioned that Bush did adequate during the first 1/2 hour (made our minimum expecations of his public speaking ability). Then, the tide changed in the middle, and by the last 1/2 hour, it was obvious that Kerry was the one with momentum, and Bush just wanted it to end. His final comment was, without a knockout blow, will anyone change their minds from such a scripted format.
This blog mentioned the 32-page MOU last week. In it the agreement is that no footage would be used for commercials, etc. Before the weekend started, we have a commercial that ends “I’m John Kerry and I approved this message” that shows Bush's hilarious grimaces and facial gaffs. The johnkerry.com web page shows these commercials, so it is not a case of the DNC doing something beyond KerryEdwards control, he obviously endorses this violation. So, he is cheating, and BIG DEAL.
That agreement is the most pathetic stranglehold on public discourse and I hope they just toss it into the trashcan before the next debate. Let them directly address each other, let them get mad, let them sweat. THAT is more presidential, (I am speaking about both candidates here).
Those public opinion polls about who won the debate are also flawed. If I were to give them grades, Kerry would get an 87% and Bush gets a 65%. (Bush showed up, was dressed appropriately, and answered all of the questions -- minimum expectations.) It should not amaze you that 30% think that Bush won, over 90% of that thought are the people who support him and cannot see Kerry as a winner. To rephrase my point, and to combat your assertion, you CAN win a debate. It is just like boxing, a panel watches and keeps track of each jab and parry. At the end, a tally is presented and the decision is made. (The modern interpretation of this is to see the editorial section of the major newspapers, Posts, Chronicles, Times, Observers, you name it, and tally their declarations.)
So, who won? Obviously Kerry won. If he had lost, then the next two debates would actually have been pointless. His campaign would have been over, DOA. He had the most to gain, and Bush had the most to lose. It actually amazes me how many in conventional wisdom (Washington Post comes to mind) that think it was a split-decision, a draw! Come on! Kerry is practically debating a retard. What is even more amazing is that he did NOT score a knock-out. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw as a kid, with a bigger opponent boxing Droopy. (You know, that dog with the sad slow voice.) Through dumb luck, the foe really couldn't score a good hit and was really just getting in his own way, and Droopy somehow made it through.
Bush's handlers will take note and will definitely correct his course the next time. (I like to think of Bush's handlers wearing lab coats and taking him out of his cage and dressing him up. I like seeing chimps in diapers.) Kerry may be able to score a knock-out punch in the next two debates, but it will be much harder. He lost a major opportunity in the first debate.
But in the end, will anyone change their mind based on these debates?
--gh
Bush reminded me of the Advanced GIS students who stayed up all night finishing their analysis and then putting the PowerPoint presentation together starting at 6am. I remember those guys delaying and delaying and then spending 24 hours in the lab the day before the presentation. They are always willing to go first, because they could barely keep their eyes open during the other presentations. (I actually dropped a presentation by a whole letter grade because the participants fell asleep during the rest of the class.)
For some reason, I found myself on Limbaugh's web page and was reading his thoughts. (I think a search brought me to his brother's web-page, davidlimbaugh.com, but I cannot remember what I was searching for.) Anyhow, if you care what Rush thinks, he mentioned that Bush did adequate during the first 1/2 hour (made our minimum expecations of his public speaking ability). Then, the tide changed in the middle, and by the last 1/2 hour, it was obvious that Kerry was the one with momentum, and Bush just wanted it to end. His final comment was, without a knockout blow, will anyone change their minds from such a scripted format.
This blog mentioned the 32-page MOU last week. In it the agreement is that no footage would be used for commercials, etc. Before the weekend started, we have a commercial that ends “I’m John Kerry and I approved this message” that shows Bush's hilarious grimaces and facial gaffs. The johnkerry.com web page shows these commercials, so it is not a case of the DNC doing something beyond KerryEdwards control, he obviously endorses this violation. So, he is cheating, and BIG DEAL.
That agreement is the most pathetic stranglehold on public discourse and I hope they just toss it into the trashcan before the next debate. Let them directly address each other, let them get mad, let them sweat. THAT is more presidential, (I am speaking about both candidates here).
Those public opinion polls about who won the debate are also flawed. If I were to give them grades, Kerry would get an 87% and Bush gets a 65%. (Bush showed up, was dressed appropriately, and answered all of the questions -- minimum expectations.) It should not amaze you that 30% think that Bush won, over 90% of that thought are the people who support him and cannot see Kerry as a winner. To rephrase my point, and to combat your assertion, you CAN win a debate. It is just like boxing, a panel watches and keeps track of each jab and parry. At the end, a tally is presented and the decision is made. (The modern interpretation of this is to see the editorial section of the major newspapers, Posts, Chronicles, Times, Observers, you name it, and tally their declarations.)
So, who won? Obviously Kerry won. If he had lost, then the next two debates would actually have been pointless. His campaign would have been over, DOA. He had the most to gain, and Bush had the most to lose. It actually amazes me how many in conventional wisdom (Washington Post comes to mind) that think it was a split-decision, a draw! Come on! Kerry is practically debating a retard. What is even more amazing is that he did NOT score a knock-out. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw as a kid, with a bigger opponent boxing Droopy. (You know, that dog with the sad slow voice.) Through dumb luck, the foe really couldn't score a good hit and was really just getting in his own way, and Droopy somehow made it through.
Bush's handlers will take note and will definitely correct his course the next time. (I like to think of Bush's handlers wearing lab coats and taking him out of his cage and dressing him up. I like seeing chimps in diapers.) Kerry may be able to score a knock-out punch in the next two debates, but it will be much harder. He lost a major opportunity in the first debate.
But in the end, will anyone change their mind based on these debates?
--gh
I guess my comments were so important, they were posted twice. I'll leave them, rather than delete it with that strange "Comment deleted by author" note, which would make you wonder if I posted something that I regretted.
You regret less in your thirties because you don't make as many mistakes. You regret even less in your twenties because you are obvlivious to your own folly. I am looking forward to my forties!
--gh
Post a Comment
You regret less in your thirties because you don't make as many mistakes. You regret even less in your twenties because you are obvlivious to your own folly. I am looking forward to my forties!
--gh
