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."
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
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.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
presidential debate
tonight was the first of three presidential debates for the election in november. for a transcript of the debate if you missed it, or want to read it to better understand the candidates position, can be found at cnn.com and probably will be complete by the end of the night.
jim lehrer from pbs' newshour, was the moderator. the rules for the debate were laid out in a 32 page booklet written by the commission for presidential debates. but, lehrer wrote the questions and had the ability to administer discretionary "follow-up" time.
it's only fair going into this, to say that i'm not a fan of bush, and am one of millions of americans that feel the 2000 elections were stolen, so that he could be president. (you think i'm kidding about the number? check out thestolenelection.com, democrats.com, or citizen's for legitimate government.) with that said, i can't say that i was initially a supporter of kerry, either. i fall pretty much in the middle of the "anybody but bush" camp.
jim lehrer came out in a black suit with a red power tie. everything about his look said that he was in charge, and the way the debate played out left no questions that he was. he explained the rules to the audience and was clear to point out that he had nothing to do with deciding the format, but no one told him which questions to ask. but, i was just thinking about his tie. i expected both candidates to have a take charge look.
i'm not sure if bush and kerry were supposed to enter at the same time, but the president was out about 15 or 20 seconds before the senator. both were in dark suits. both wore conservative ties. kerry's tie was a dark red affair, at first i thought it was maroon, which would have been a mistake (too odd a color for a presidential debate), but once he got to the podium, you could see that it was clearly dark red. bush's tie was a medium to medium-dark blue that would have been perfect except that it had small dots or designs of a lighter color that didn't come across very well on television, and i was distracted the first couple of times the camera was on him. i don't blame him for this minor guffaw, this was something his staff should have taken care of.
i won't bore you or myself by rehashing the whole debate. i just have observations to make. so much to-do has been made about this debate "making or breaking" the campaign, that i was more interested in the debate than in the content of the debate.
both candidates used their hands well in the initial questions. by the last 30 minutes, however, bush was doing something i've seen him use time and time again; he would occasionally lean on the podium, trying to be folksy, but in my opinion coming across as arrogant- saying with body language, "i am so cocky that i don't need to stand up straight and show the respect that other men and women need to."
this podium-leaning wasn't as decisive to me as to when the camera showed the candidate not speaking. each time senator kerry was shown while president bush was speaking, kerry was either jotting down notes or attentively listening. president bush, on the other hand, spent the first half hour stareing straight ahead.
as to the actual speaking, i thought both men did a good job. in fact, i think they both did better than their respective reputations would have lead us to expect. kerry did not come across as the stuffed-shirt intelectual, and bush did not come across an idiot.
lehrer had announced at the beginning that he may allow discretionary time, and bush was really the only one to utilize it. after the second time, he didn't wait for lehrer to give him a go ahead if he wanted to say more, he just took it. while some might point this out as an annoying trait, i would disagree. the president probably got close to four or five minutes more "allowed" speaking time than his opponent. plus, it allowed him to look like he was in control of the debate, not lerher and certainly not kerry.
content-wise, the only thing that i thought worth mentioning, because it's the first time i've heard the candidate do this, was kerry's use of colin powell against the bush. on two occasions, kerry said that powell was doing the right thing and then bush did a reversal, making matters worse. instead of denying that he was contradicting his secratary of state, all the president did was say at a point late in the debate, "on this colin and i agreed".
my final conclusion is that there wasn't really a winner. the president didn't win. the senator didn't win. and if we are to believe nbc news, undecided voters didn't win (there panel of six undecided voters before the debate, was a panel of six undecided voters after the debate). but, nobody lost either. it's too bad that there are only going to be three debates. the country needs more head-to-head discussion on important topics not less.
i thought bush did surprisingly well, but i thought that kerry came across as very firm and stayed on message the whole time. this election is a lot closer than i wish it were.
jim lehrer from pbs' newshour, was the moderator. the rules for the debate were laid out in a 32 page booklet written by the commission for presidential debates. but, lehrer wrote the questions and had the ability to administer discretionary "follow-up" time.
it's only fair going into this, to say that i'm not a fan of bush, and am one of millions of americans that feel the 2000 elections were stolen, so that he could be president. (you think i'm kidding about the number? check out thestolenelection.com, democrats.com, or citizen's for legitimate government.) with that said, i can't say that i was initially a supporter of kerry, either. i fall pretty much in the middle of the "anybody but bush" camp.
jim lehrer came out in a black suit with a red power tie. everything about his look said that he was in charge, and the way the debate played out left no questions that he was. he explained the rules to the audience and was clear to point out that he had nothing to do with deciding the format, but no one told him which questions to ask. but, i was just thinking about his tie. i expected both candidates to have a take charge look.
i'm not sure if bush and kerry were supposed to enter at the same time, but the president was out about 15 or 20 seconds before the senator. both were in dark suits. both wore conservative ties. kerry's tie was a dark red affair, at first i thought it was maroon, which would have been a mistake (too odd a color for a presidential debate), but once he got to the podium, you could see that it was clearly dark red. bush's tie was a medium to medium-dark blue that would have been perfect except that it had small dots or designs of a lighter color that didn't come across very well on television, and i was distracted the first couple of times the camera was on him. i don't blame him for this minor guffaw, this was something his staff should have taken care of.
i won't bore you or myself by rehashing the whole debate. i just have observations to make. so much to-do has been made about this debate "making or breaking" the campaign, that i was more interested in the debate than in the content of the debate.
both candidates used their hands well in the initial questions. by the last 30 minutes, however, bush was doing something i've seen him use time and time again; he would occasionally lean on the podium, trying to be folksy, but in my opinion coming across as arrogant- saying with body language, "i am so cocky that i don't need to stand up straight and show the respect that other men and women need to."
this podium-leaning wasn't as decisive to me as to when the camera showed the candidate not speaking. each time senator kerry was shown while president bush was speaking, kerry was either jotting down notes or attentively listening. president bush, on the other hand, spent the first half hour stareing straight ahead.
as to the actual speaking, i thought both men did a good job. in fact, i think they both did better than their respective reputations would have lead us to expect. kerry did not come across as the stuffed-shirt intelectual, and bush did not come across an idiot.
lehrer had announced at the beginning that he may allow discretionary time, and bush was really the only one to utilize it. after the second time, he didn't wait for lehrer to give him a go ahead if he wanted to say more, he just took it. while some might point this out as an annoying trait, i would disagree. the president probably got close to four or five minutes more "allowed" speaking time than his opponent. plus, it allowed him to look like he was in control of the debate, not lerher and certainly not kerry.
content-wise, the only thing that i thought worth mentioning, because it's the first time i've heard the candidate do this, was kerry's use of colin powell against the bush. on two occasions, kerry said that powell was doing the right thing and then bush did a reversal, making matters worse. instead of denying that he was contradicting his secratary of state, all the president did was say at a point late in the debate, "on this colin and i agreed".
my final conclusion is that there wasn't really a winner. the president didn't win. the senator didn't win. and if we are to believe nbc news, undecided voters didn't win (there panel of six undecided voters before the debate, was a panel of six undecided voters after the debate). but, nobody lost either. it's too bad that there are only going to be three debates. the country needs more head-to-head discussion on important topics not less.
i thought bush did surprisingly well, but i thought that kerry came across as very firm and stayed on message the whole time. this election is a lot closer than i wish it were.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
team america: world police
i just saw the trailer for the newest movie by south park creators, matt stone and trey parker, team america: world police. my initial reactions are mixed. i think these two can be hilarious at their best, yet i have a preternatural dislike, almost fear, of marionette style puppets that look this way- like the old british kids show, thunderbirds.
every once in a while, you've got to watch some comedy that appeals to your more basic, pre-teen self. i can't think of anyone who does fart and poop jokes better than these two. stone and parker do voices in the movie, and to be honest, some of the puppets look like them. (or is it that they look like scary marionettes?) the film pokes fun at the united states and our foreign policies. the current administration is of course the main target of their lampooning. but, i suspect that the satire is really aimed at the country as a whole. i mean, how hundreds of millions of dollars have the rambo movies made? or how about schwarzenegger's commando? americans love to see this type of film. not to mention, there is a scene that shows a puppet version of michael moore getting blown up.
now, the whole fear of marionettes thing- it's a little embarassing. when i was a child, did i have nightmares after seeing friday the 13th or poltergeist? no. it was after i watched thunderbirds for the first time. fast forward 20 years, and while i might not have bad dreams about them any more, these marionettes just make me feel uncomfortable.
every once in a while, you've got to watch some comedy that appeals to your more basic, pre-teen self. i can't think of anyone who does fart and poop jokes better than these two. stone and parker do voices in the movie, and to be honest, some of the puppets look like them. (or is it that they look like scary marionettes?) the film pokes fun at the united states and our foreign policies. the current administration is of course the main target of their lampooning. but, i suspect that the satire is really aimed at the country as a whole. i mean, how hundreds of millions of dollars have the rambo movies made? or how about schwarzenegger's commando? americans love to see this type of film. not to mention, there is a scene that shows a puppet version of michael moore getting blown up.
now, the whole fear of marionettes thing- it's a little embarassing. when i was a child, did i have nightmares after seeing friday the 13th or poltergeist? no. it was after i watched thunderbirds for the first time. fast forward 20 years, and while i might not have bad dreams about them any more, these marionettes just make me feel uncomfortable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)