Presidential Debate: Round 3 (Going the Distance!)

It's interesting that Kerry is much better on foreign policy and goes back to the talking points when he gets to domestic policy. This wasn't how the Democrats had planned to run this campaign, I'm sure. (I also halfway suspect Kerry deliberately stayed low-key through much of debate 2 in order to keep the spotlight on Bush.)

I think Kerry can really nail Bush on health care, though. It's a huge problem for almost everyone. He's got a fairly good plan and Bush's record on this issue is just toxic, as he dumped tons of money into that prescription drug benefit, strongarmed Congress into passing it, hid the real costs from lawmakers, ran up the deficit further in the process, did nothing for the uninsured, did nothing about importing drugs from Canada, prevented Medicare from getting discounts from the drug companies, and what's more.. Seniors hate it. Democrats generally win on domestic policy anyway, so I think Kerry just has to be clear and show where Bush has failed..

Also, most sole traders have to contribute double the Social Security funds because those on a salary go halvsies with employers, and they're well paranoid that's going to disappear just when they need it. My mom is surely not the only one shelling out more than $3,000 a year for the most basic insurance, with something like a $1000 deductible (or 100 Kotex) - and she's a sole trader paying double Social Security. A lot of these people are Republicans or Reagan Democrats for whom healthcare is a major issue; if they employ staff there are tons of issues relating to benefits provision for those people amounting to health enfranchisement - and we know that people are becoming more disenfranchised in this area under Bush.

When he gonna roll out 'Again, here's another case where W stands for wrong'?

K: here's another case of where W stands for wrong
B: yeah, and F stands for FUCK OFF LIBERAL SCUM
K: haha W for Wanker more like

FITE!!!

W = Wrong is short, to the point, and CORRECT. What's more, the pithiness can be followed by the W that stands for why...

Anyway, healthcare?

polls consistently show that the majority of Americans agree with Democrats on domestic issues, so I'm not sure if your observation is true.

I also wish they had a chance to bring up Kerry's "nuisance" quote in this debate because it would give Kerry a chance to stress how he would actually get some fucking results in the War on Terruh rather than using it as a weapon to keep the nation in a state of constant fear.

And this is my major fear - it doesn't matter how good Kerry does in the debates, b/c the remaining few weeks of the campaign is more than enough time for the press to pretend that they didn't happen and that Bush winning is a foregone conclusion.

But I think the insanely huge push to register new voters (and presumably the get out the vote efforts which will follow) are going to have much more of an effect than the debates did.

Oh yeah, and i was wearing my mexican-wrestling mask & red cape whilst doing this. people were happy. i got a hug from a skinny hipster chick, and a latino guy on his way home from work stopped to take my picture, since his officemate is a big fan of luchadors...

This is hardly the case.

holy shit. the gloves are off now, ain't they? even at the onion's offices. Check the lead story for tomorrow's ish:

Cheney Vows to Attack U.S. if Kerry Elected
GREENSBORO, NC—In an announcement that has alarmed voters across the nation, Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that he will personally attack the U.S. if Sen. John Kerry wins the next election.

"If the wrong man is elected in November, the nation will come under a devastating armed attack of an unimaginable magnitude, one planned and executed by none other than myself," Cheney said, speaking at a rally in Greensboro, NC. "When they go to the polls, Americans must weigh this fact and decide if our nation can ignore such a grave threat..."

You mean the guy from Herman's Hermits?

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/nm/20041012/mdf722187.jpg

I'm smiling so wide, the top of my head might fall off!

I think this is a fantastic 'toolkit'. There should be no invasion without representation, yet invasion is precisely what George Bush compelled Britain to participate in. We've earned the right to influence the choice of his successor.

GO YANKEES!

This is a non-issue.

Momus: I agree with you about our right to intervene. I find your optimism endearing, though probably excessive.

hmm?

xpost please don't bring that up Steve. (i mean, er, Tony)

the debate quote they played on power 106 this morning was the sopranos quote, but the hosts of the show all thought the debate was a draw for some reason. they also said something about BET banning the new eminem video when MTV wouldnt, and then went on to say 'hey arent they both owned by viacom anyway? - yeah yeah they are..' pfft.

???? Sullivan may be to the right of me on many issues but he's always been pretty consistent, unsurprisingly, on gay rights.

The Mary Cheney thing really is a fascinating Rorschach test. Many conservatives are appalled and cast their anti-Kerry opinion as a defense of Mary. Here's one:

Last night he allowed his obsession with his own selfish desire to win a point overshadow the appropriate boundaries of taste, compassion, and kindess. Lynne Cheney has the right to call him a bad man. And woman across the nation have the right to see for themselves that he is willing to victimize THEM if it comes to padding his advantage, reputation, position, or standing.

Victimize? All Kerry did was invoke the veep's daughter to point out that obviously homosexuality isn't a choice, in any meaningful sense. The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful. Well, it isn't. What's revealing is that this truly does expose the homophobia of so many - even in the mildest "we'll-tolerate-you-but-shut-up-and-don't-complain" form. Mickey Kaus, for his part, cannot see any reason for Kerry to mention Mary except as some Machiavellian scheme to pander to bigots. Again: huh? Couldn't it just be that Kerry thinks of gay people as human beings like straight people - and mentioning their lives is not something we should shrink from? Isn't that the simplest interpretation? In many speeches on marriage rights, I cite Mary Cheney. Why? Because it exposes the rank hypocrisy of people like president Bush and Dick and Lynne Cheney who don't believe gays are anti-family demons but want to win the votes of people who do. I'm not outing any gay person. I'm outing the double standards of straight ones. They've had it every which way for decades, when gay people were invisible. Now they have to choose.

Let me give you an example of the double standards here. I remember once being driven around by a charming woman on a stop on a book tour. We talked about my book, and she averred, after chatting all day, that she had nothing against gay people, she just wished they wouldn't "bring it up" all the time. I responded: "But you've been talking about your heterosexuality ever since I got in the car." She said: "I haven't. I've never once discussed sex." My response: "Within two minutes, you mentioned your children and your husband. You talked about your son's work at high school. You mentioned your husband's line of work. And on and on. You wear your heterosexuality on your sleeve all the time. And that's fine. But if I so much as mention the fact that I'm gay, I'm told it's all I care about, and that I should pipe down. Don't you see the double standard?" Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the constitution itself. Why don't conservatives get exercized about that?

Mickey posits a perilous race analogy:

What if Kerry were debating a conservative on affirmative action, and that conservative had a black wife, and Kerry gratuitously brought that up in an attempt to cost his opponent the racist vote? Would Andrew Sullivan approve? I don't think so. ...

First off, I don't buy the cynical explanation of Kerry's reference. But secondly, affirmative action isn't a strong enough analogy. Let's say the president was proposing the real analogy: a constitutional amendment to ban inter-racial marriage. Now let's say the veep's daughter was married to a black man. Would it be relevant then? Of course it would. But there is an obvious solution to this debate: let Mary speak. She's running the veep's campaign. She's an adult. Why can't she tell us if she's upset by Kerry's and Edwards' remarks? Give her a microphone, guys. What are you afraid of?

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041014/capt.azsa10610140137.debate_azsa106.jpg

LAS VEGAS - President Bush said Thursday the trio of prime-time debates with Sen. John Kerry demonstrated he is running on his record — and his opponent away from his own — even as the Republican campaign acknowledged that Kerry had gained from the confrontations viewed by tens of millions of Americans...

(not really a debate photo, but i like McCain's look of "Fuck, WHY am i doing this again?")

Think that it couldn't happen? Who woulda thunk thirty years that her old man would've made it?

You left me with no other choice, Raggett.

x-post

Pinefox, it was really the way he said it, more than the transcript. The moderator, a sometime golfing buddy of Bush, whose brother Bush appointed as an Ambassador, voiced the criticism of some extreme Catholic bishops who have urged their congregations (I know that's probably not the right word) to vote for Bush, not Kerry, because of Kerry's support for abortion rights. "I respect their views. I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views, but I disagree with them, as do many." He came close to letting the first clause of the last sentence be a comedy bit. But he toughened up on it just enough.

This is entirely OTM. There's a great book called The Abortion Myth -- the myth, which is perpetrated by both sides, is that getting an abortion is an easy decision.