It's the last Saturday before the election. The media would have us believe that this is the real crunch time. They have polls that claim the race is too close to call, so the candidate's victory rests on any comments made this weekend.
I think this is a load of crap. If there are truly any undecided voters left in the country, I sincerely doubt that hearing either candidate (sorry Nader) one more time will matter. It's not like they've said anything new in the last month. Plus, I think it's one of those situations where you either love or hate the candidate, without much middle ground, if any.
There is only one recently added news item in the current cycle; the whistleblowing by the official in the Army Corp of Engineers on the Halliburton bid. But, it's not something completely new. I doubt anyone is suddenly going to react, "What's this? Cheney and Rumsfeld really are crooks?"
I just think that people's minds are made up and that the media outlets know this, but are so enamored by "reality tv" that they are adding all of the drama.
If I had my way, we would call the "battleground states" what they really are- states that contribute large amounts of money to the Republicans and Democrats.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Final Presidential Debate of the Season
Wednesday, October 13th, 2004 saw the final debate between incumbent George Bush and challenger John Kerry. It took place in Arizona and was moderated by Bob Schieffer of CBS news.
The only real difference between this debate, not counting the moderator, was the color of George Bush's tie. This time he wore a bright red tie- the true "power tie". (Well, not according to some.)
Just as the other moderators before him, Bob Schieffer did an excellent job, and asked some great questions. Too bad the candidates didn't answer him. You can check it out for yourself at The Commission for Presidential Debates and decide for yourself.
When Schieffer asked Bush to tell a worker standing right in front of him, what he would do about his lost job, I am sure that Schieffer did not intend to clarify the "No Child Left Behind" law. Nor did he wish to hear from Kerry about compensating for outsourcing.
I guess the debates were good for undecided voters who wished to be swayed by charisma rather than content. This is as much the fault of the parties as the candidates. Each election the debates get shorter. And, we're told that each election is the most important of our generation. Interesting contradiction, huh? Maybe they are just trying to acclimate us to an upcoming news report, "Mr. Jones was appointed President of the United States today..."
The only real difference between this debate, not counting the moderator, was the color of George Bush's tie. This time he wore a bright red tie- the true "power tie". (Well, not according to some.)
Just as the other moderators before him, Bob Schieffer did an excellent job, and asked some great questions. Too bad the candidates didn't answer him. You can check it out for yourself at The Commission for Presidential Debates and decide for yourself.
When Schieffer asked Bush to tell a worker standing right in front of him, what he would do about his lost job, I am sure that Schieffer did not intend to clarify the "No Child Left Behind" law. Nor did he wish to hear from Kerry about compensating for outsourcing.
I guess the debates were good for undecided voters who wished to be swayed by charisma rather than content. This is as much the fault of the parties as the candidates. Each election the debates get shorter. And, we're told that each election is the most important of our generation. Interesting contradiction, huh? Maybe they are just trying to acclimate us to an upcoming news report, "Mr. Jones was appointed President of the United States today..."
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Town Hall Presidential Debate
I am a little slow writing on this one. I didn't take notes this time, so will forget everything good. Well, most of the good stuff ended up on Saturday Night Live.
This debate was in a town hall format. 140 undecided voters as identified by the Gallup organization, were invited to attend and prepare two questions, one President Bush and one for Senator Kerry. The moderator, Charles Gibson, then chose which questions would be asked and in what order. The time allotments were the same as the other two debates.
This was really a repeat of their first debate. Both men wore similar color suits and ties as they did the first time around, though this time Bush's tie was solid blue, a big improvement in my book. Both men said the same thing on foreign policy as the first debate, and echoed the vice presidential debates on domestic issues.
What it really came down to were slip-ups and personality. Both men made mistakes and had lots of awkward pauses in their answers, which may be a sign that they were thinking about their answers, or just that they couldn't remember which canned response to give. The most interesting mistake was by Bush, in which he referred to Senator Kennedy as the most liberal Senator. I think this statement is probably true, too bad he's running against Senator Kerry. I really wish that Kerry had made a little joke out of this, it would have shown a sense of humor which I think many find lacking in him. George Bush, on the other hand, should try to stay more serious, especially since he was the only one finding his jokes funny. Bush's whole response to the $84 he made from lumber sales made him look like an idiot, not a comedian.
Two other things that were of note during the debate, Kerry's response to a question on taxes and a phrase that Bush kept using. In response to a question on new taxes in which he was asked to look straight into the camera and say he would not raise taxes, Kerry did exactly that. It was reminiscent of Bush Sr and the "read my lips" quote. But, Bush did not respond with that (which would have shown him to ba a comedian) but instead accused Kerry of not answering and then using the phrase, "You can run, but you can't hide." What? Bush used this quote several times, and each time, I sat back in wonderment at what must be going through that brain. All I can say is that I would have paid money for him to say, "Dog will hunt."
This debate was in a town hall format. 140 undecided voters as identified by the Gallup organization, were invited to attend and prepare two questions, one President Bush and one for Senator Kerry. The moderator, Charles Gibson, then chose which questions would be asked and in what order. The time allotments were the same as the other two debates.
This was really a repeat of their first debate. Both men wore similar color suits and ties as they did the first time around, though this time Bush's tie was solid blue, a big improvement in my book. Both men said the same thing on foreign policy as the first debate, and echoed the vice presidential debates on domestic issues.
What it really came down to were slip-ups and personality. Both men made mistakes and had lots of awkward pauses in their answers, which may be a sign that they were thinking about their answers, or just that they couldn't remember which canned response to give. The most interesting mistake was by Bush, in which he referred to Senator Kennedy as the most liberal Senator. I think this statement is probably true, too bad he's running against Senator Kerry. I really wish that Kerry had made a little joke out of this, it would have shown a sense of humor which I think many find lacking in him. George Bush, on the other hand, should try to stay more serious, especially since he was the only one finding his jokes funny. Bush's whole response to the $84 he made from lumber sales made him look like an idiot, not a comedian.
Two other things that were of note during the debate, Kerry's response to a question on taxes and a phrase that Bush kept using. In response to a question on new taxes in which he was asked to look straight into the camera and say he would not raise taxes, Kerry did exactly that. It was reminiscent of Bush Sr and the "read my lips" quote. But, Bush did not respond with that (which would have shown him to ba a comedian) but instead accused Kerry of not answering and then using the phrase, "You can run, but you can't hide." What? Bush used this quote several times, and each time, I sat back in wonderment at what must be going through that brain. All I can say is that I would have paid money for him to say, "Dog will hunt."
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Vice Presidential Debate
Last night was the first and only vice presidential debate of the 2004 election. Too bad. I don't think there was a lot said by either candidate that hadn't already been said by their runningmates. Kudos to moderator, Gwen Ifill who did a superb job as everybody expected. I think that the roles filled by Lehrer and Ifill, show PBS to be the number one responsible news source in America. For a full transcript of the debate, you can find one at the Commission on Presidential Debates website.
The first difference was the setup of the stage. Instead of duelling podiums placed 10 paces apart, this debate took place at a table with both candidates and the moderator being seated. The sides were reversed in this debate- whereas in the Presidential debate, the President had been at stage left and the Senator at stage right, Vice President Cheney was at stage right, and Senator Edwards was at stage left. Unfortunately, this was the most interesting development for roughly the first hour of the debate. Both men were polite and well-spoken. They both took notes, and when the other was speaking, listened attentively. The only problem was that both Edwards and Cheney were repeating lines from the debate last Thursday, or even worse, in my opinion, repeating lines from their side's television ads.
The first 45 minutes were devoted to foreign policy,which to both men meant talking about Iraq, with an occasional mention of Afghanistan. It's when Ifill turned the questions to domestic policy that we finally heard some new information from both sides. I think there were three key moments- when Cheney gave out the web address in response to allegations made by Edwards about Haliburton, when the issue of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was raised, and when each candidate was asked to tell what they brought to the election without using the name of their runningmate.
After Edwards spent nearly two minutes describing how Haliburton had violated the law and received quite abit of favoritism from the administration, Cheney rebutted with of all things, a web address to a site that would prove Edwards was wrong. This really caught my attention. This was not something that I had seen the Republicans do in the past, and certainly not one of the Conservatives like Cheney. I'm guessing that Cheney had wished that he hadn't done it, with all thef all-out it has received. For starters, he gave out the wrong web address. On top of that, the organization did not say what the Vice President claimed they did.(Factcheck.org was responding to a Kerry ad about different issues with Haliburton.)
Concerning the issue of the proposed constitutional amendment, Cheney did not waver and very succinctly said that he did not favor the amendment, but it was his job to support the President. In response, Edwards expressed his respect for Cheney on this issue, and didn't waver from the fact that he and Kerry did not support gay marriages, but felt it was no business of the federal government, especially by amending the constitution, to decide this.
The final important issue came as Gwen Ifill asked Dick Cheney to describe how he mattered, if you will, without using the President's name. It was very clear that the spirit of her question was to have each candidate talk about their strengthes and the other's weaknesses. Cheney answered appropriately, but the rebuttal by John Edwards was embarassing. Edwards immediately used Kerry's name, but never talked about Cheney or himself in particular. He adopted using "we" and slipped up twice more using Kerry's name. It was hard from my vantage point to tell if Edwards intentionally didn't answer the question raised, or if he didn't understand the question raised.
I think when it came down to it in the end, Vice President Dick Cheney won the debate. Both men were eloquent and civil. Cheney just spent more time talking to the questions raised by Ifill.
This conclusion of course is not based on the fact that I personally believe many of the statements made about Iraq, escpecially with concern to ties with al Queda, are nothing but lies and half-truthes. If it were, Edwards would not even have had to show up for Cheney to lose.
The first difference was the setup of the stage. Instead of duelling podiums placed 10 paces apart, this debate took place at a table with both candidates and the moderator being seated. The sides were reversed in this debate- whereas in the Presidential debate, the President had been at stage left and the Senator at stage right, Vice President Cheney was at stage right, and Senator Edwards was at stage left. Unfortunately, this was the most interesting development for roughly the first hour of the debate. Both men were polite and well-spoken. They both took notes, and when the other was speaking, listened attentively. The only problem was that both Edwards and Cheney were repeating lines from the debate last Thursday, or even worse, in my opinion, repeating lines from their side's television ads.
The first 45 minutes were devoted to foreign policy,which to both men meant talking about Iraq, with an occasional mention of Afghanistan. It's when Ifill turned the questions to domestic policy that we finally heard some new information from both sides. I think there were three key moments- when Cheney gave out the web address in response to allegations made by Edwards about Haliburton, when the issue of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was raised, and when each candidate was asked to tell what they brought to the election without using the name of their runningmate.
After Edwards spent nearly two minutes describing how Haliburton had violated the law and received quite abit of favoritism from the administration, Cheney rebutted with of all things, a web address to a site that would prove Edwards was wrong. This really caught my attention. This was not something that I had seen the Republicans do in the past, and certainly not one of the Conservatives like Cheney. I'm guessing that Cheney had wished that he hadn't done it, with all thef all-out it has received. For starters, he gave out the wrong web address. On top of that, the organization did not say what the Vice President claimed they did.(Factcheck.org was responding to a Kerry ad about different issues with Haliburton.)
Concerning the issue of the proposed constitutional amendment, Cheney did not waver and very succinctly said that he did not favor the amendment, but it was his job to support the President. In response, Edwards expressed his respect for Cheney on this issue, and didn't waver from the fact that he and Kerry did not support gay marriages, but felt it was no business of the federal government, especially by amending the constitution, to decide this.
The final important issue came as Gwen Ifill asked Dick Cheney to describe how he mattered, if you will, without using the President's name. It was very clear that the spirit of her question was to have each candidate talk about their strengthes and the other's weaknesses. Cheney answered appropriately, but the rebuttal by John Edwards was embarassing. Edwards immediately used Kerry's name, but never talked about Cheney or himself in particular. He adopted using "we" and slipped up twice more using Kerry's name. It was hard from my vantage point to tell if Edwards intentionally didn't answer the question raised, or if he didn't understand the question raised.
I think when it came down to it in the end, Vice President Dick Cheney won the debate. Both men were eloquent and civil. Cheney just spent more time talking to the questions raised by Ifill.
This conclusion of course is not based on the fact that I personally believe many of the statements made about Iraq, escpecially with concern to ties with al Queda, are nothing but lies and half-truthes. If it were, Edwards would not even have had to show up for Cheney to lose.
Monday, October 04, 2004
Monday, Monday
Monday, again. It's not that weekends are any more special than the other days of the week (ask me again when I'm working full time), but Monday's have a certain quality about them. It's something that says, "You have so long to wait before you get any time off..." They also carry a stigma. I mean, you never hear anybody say, "T.G.I.M.!"
I have experienced jobs where I did look forward to getting back to work. But, this was usually after a more extended time, not just the weekend. Certainly, this is the exception and not the rule.
Mondays and Fridays are the days employees are most likely to call in sick to work. Check out Sherrill Nixon's article Mondayitis. Sure, the article is addressing sick days in Australia, but the idea is the same.
I think it says something about the nature of the system when so many people hate to go to work. Or maybe it just says something about the nature of Mondays.
I have experienced jobs where I did look forward to getting back to work. But, this was usually after a more extended time, not just the weekend. Certainly, this is the exception and not the rule.
Mondays and Fridays are the days employees are most likely to call in sick to work. Check out Sherrill Nixon's article Mondayitis. Sure, the article is addressing sick days in Australia, but the idea is the same.
I think it says something about the nature of the system when so many people hate to go to work. Or maybe it just says something about the nature of Mondays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)