Let's Talk Reality

Or at least a version of it. Some 'persuadables' that the media are honing in on are Republicans, ex-Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

Many undecided voters liked what they saw from John Kerry and were more than a little concerned about President Bush's performance in the first presidential debate -- but they still had questions about what Kerry would do in Iraq.

Michael O'Fallon, a 41-year-old Republican from Prior Lake, Minn., tuned in hoping Bush would perform well. He voted for Bush in 2000 and still is inclined to support the president. But he was disappointed.

"I think Kerry was more prepared than Bush was, unfortunately," he said Friday. "The president looked kind of preoccupied. He was stumbling for words. I think Kerry really gave it to him.

"I don't like the Democratic side and I want Bush to stay in," O'Fallon said. "But he's going to have to get his story a little neater and straighter."

O'Fallon, like one in every five voters, is persuadable -- the voter group that will decide this presidential election. That group includes about 5 percent who tell pollsters they don't know who will get their vote and about 15 percent who say they are leaning toward one candidate but could switch to another.

Businesswoman Marilyn Morrison of San Marcos, Calif., leans toward Bush, but after the 57-year-old Republican watched the debate, she turned to her Democratic husband and said, "If Kerry won, I could live with it."

Morrison, who voted for Bush in 2000, says she never would have said that before watching the presidential debate, which focused on foreign policy.

These folks were always going to be a tough sell. And they may well not make up their mind until Election Day. They do not include new voters, new registrants, etc., and often do not include Dem leaners and true indies. The brilliant Daily Show skewering of undecided voters (who couldn't decide where to sit in the focus group segment) should not make one lose patience. But they do not represent everyone out there, either.

So the reality? ABC News described this as Flipper vs Alice in Fantasyland (compared to Pinocchio vs Dumbo in 20000). And Kerry demolished the Flipper meme in his debate, while he and the Iraq news reinforces the out-of-touch Bush, as does the shielded Bush rallies. See Debate throws Bush on defensive from Knight Ridder and Ron Fournier of the AP:

As both campaigns raced to shape and then cement perceptions about what happened before the eyes of 62.5 million television viewers, some Republicans said they feared Bush had given new life to an embattled foe.

Repubs always treat winning as inevitable... it's Page 1 of their playbook. When they worry in public, they're worried.

•  Flip-flopping

  I think Kerry laid that one to rest.  Bush's continuing parroting of this theme makes him look mean now.

  by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 05:59:46 AM PDT

  •  Nope, it makes him look DESPERATE

    Bush is projecting like mad. Everything he says about Kerry is more true about him.

    When Bush kept saying the job of President is hard he was trying to say Kerry is not up to it. What Bush was really saying is he is not up to the job.

    When Bush accuses Kerry of flip flopping what he really is saying is that he is the one who has been drifting.

    When Bush accuses Kerry of being weak on terrorism what he really means is that he let Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri slip through his fingers at Tora Bora.

    When Bush asks how Kerry is going to pay for homeland security what he really means is that he has blown the surplus into unprecedented deficits through irresponsible tax cuts and lax controls on spending.

    When Bush attacks Kerry for not respecting his Iraqi puppet Allawi what he really means is that he casually insulted and alienated all of America's allies except for the UK.

    When Bush attacks Kerry for forgetting Poland what he really means is that he forgot that the Polish President said that they had been lied to on the WMD issue.

    The smearboat liars are emblematic of the Bush campaign. Kerry is a proven war hero, Bush is a probable deserter. So Bush attacks Kerry through the smearboat crew then complains about 527 attack ads.

    by GeorgeScovell on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:14:20 AM PDT

  •  Not exactly 'laid to rest'

    He projected strength and resolve well, but his comeback for the $87 billion vote seemed to acknowledge the inconsistency.

    He should have said, "Let's get this taken care of once and for all.  There were two versions of the bill - one which was paid for and one which your children and grandchildren will end up paying for.  Guess which version the President supported?  I will not vote for any legislation, no matter how needed, without a plan for how to pay for it."

    by spamhead on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:48:59 AM PDT

  •  Flipper meme is dented, but not demolished

    I've been puzzled by the Kerry campaign's unwillingness to counterattack on the flip-flopper charge.  Tarring Kerry with this label is at least half of the Bush campaign's strategy.

    This is less of a problem now, since Kerry said, "... I made a mistake in how I talk about the war.  But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq.  Which is worse?"  That was a good line.

    But still, I sense that many undecided voters are  unsure that Kerry can lead America during this dangerous time as confidently, consistently, and competently as Bush.  (Yes, I know, I can't believe it either.  But that's what some people seem to think.)

    Kerry needs a sound bite that takes out the flip-flop issue once and for all.  I haven't thought of that sound bite yet, or read any good suggestions.  But perhaps one of you has or will.  (The best idea I've seen is to show that Bush is a bigger flip-flopper.  But this fails to counteract the charge against Kerry.)

    I'll set up a thread at my blog for your comments, or you can post here.

    by Mr Smith on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:59:20 AM PDT

    •  Let's get this taken care of once and for all

      I didn't seem spamhead's comment (right above mine) before posting.  I like the idea of "Let's get this taken care of once and for all."

      What I'm looking for is a line that deals not just with the $87 billion, but with the alleged character issue of flip-flopping.

      by Mr Smith on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 09:08:08 AM PDT

•  Springsteen

  Kerry should go on stage with Springsteen and jam with him on "Born In The USA". At the end of the song Kerry's Vietnam buddies could come up on stage. Something like this would give him an aura of "coolness" and would generate a lot of excitement and momentum.  It would also generate a lot of positive (and free) media coverage.

  by John Masotti on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:02:58 AM PDT

  •  I think not

    Besides the fact that the Rethugs and rightwing media would tear him to pieces if he ever did that, it would diminish the Presidential stature and credibility he gained by his outstanding debate performance the other night.

    Kerry's strong suit is not projecting an aura of  hip coolness, rather it's in being who he is: an intelligent, well-informed, thoughtful and strong leader who be the President of the United States.

    by byteb on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:58:06 AM PDT

    •  Correction.:Left out 'will'

      'who will be the next President of the United States."

      by byteb on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:00:29 AM PDT

    •  Probably illegal, too

      If Kerry was coordinating with these concert organizers, would that be a violation of modern campaign finance laws?

      by TrentL on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 09:01:01 AM PDT

•  Love the quote

  "If Kerry won, I could live with it."

  Consider the alternative...

  "If Bush won, we all would die because of it."

  by jackemoe on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:04:06 AM PDT

  •  Sounds like

    giving up to me.  I don't think I could live with it if Bush won.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:07:54 AM PDT

•  What was really revealed

  in the debate was that our guy does great when the going gets tough, while thier guy does lousy. We are always upset because many Americans make gut decisions about who is better, but what will thier guts tell them this time? In these scary times people need reassurance, and what the camera revealed was not reassuring.

  by PLS on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:04:35 AM PDT

•  Bush: War against Truth

  The entire Bush campaign is a war: against Truth.

  The War on Truth has cost American lives in Iraq, destroyed the American economy, and polarized the American people against each other, instead of reaching out to lead the world by example. The most secret administration in history is at war with reality, internal and external.

  Against the Truth of the horror of NOTHING accomplished and QUAGMIRE accomplished in Bushes four years of corrupting democracy

  Against the Truth of who John Kerry is and what he stands for.

  The War against Truth, against Reality must be exposed, and I think presidente-jefe Bush started to mightily expose his untrustable nature at the first debate.

  by sanitydotcom on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:07:48 AM PDT

  •  a shot in the foot!

    some pundits have said that the rethug's incessant caricaturing of kerry was their grand error of judgement.  kerry's appearance opposite bush neutralized the caricature, and bush's dismal performance turned him into the caricature in the minds of viewers.

    i will grant that our side has caricatured bush, but this debate proved our point.

    the repubs, on the other hand, pulled a stock caricture out of the box, whereas our treatment of bush was fresh, new, & based in reality.

    by x on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:26:34 AM PDT

    •  I agree with you

      Their caricature was very effective.  In part, because they kept repeating it and got the news media to do it too.  They were a little too successful.

      They had Kerry's negatives so high, that there was nowhere for Kerry to go but up.  All he had to do was go out and be a credible Commander in Chief.  He did that.  He hit one out of the park.

      I think the Kerry campaign made a mistake to allow the character assassination go on too long, but maybe they'll benefit in the long run.  They probably knew they wouldn't get the media coverage until the debates anyway.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:32:58 AM PDT

•  There is an article in the Post this morning

  That compares Bush's performance to Nixon vs Kennedy and the first Gore vs Bush. Harping on demeanor.  We have seen how perceptions can harden and even change over a couple of days.  We are seeing this happening only in our favor this time.  It is tempting to feel that the rapid response is responsible and I'm sure it helped.  

  But what really happened was that three illusions were punctured on Thursday.  The cartoon image of Bush as the strong resolute commander in chief that has been created out of whole cloth was demonstrated to be bullshit.  The cartoon image that they've painted of Kerry as squishy and indecisive was demonstrated to be bullshit.  And finally at long last the bogus connection between Saddam and 9/11 was demonstrated to be bullshit.  Say what you want about the average voter.  He has a relatively functioning bullshit detector.

  by SW on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:08:51 AM PDT

  •  Good Comparison

    The Nixon in 1960 comparison is right on point.  In 1960, Nixon was tired, had an injured knee, and little sleep.  His was sweating heavily -- which was one of his big physical problems throughout his life.

    Bush was tired, but so what.  As he said more than once, the presidency is a tough job.  Bush should have sucked it up.  

    What I found really interesting was Bush's reaction to contrary facts.  He does not like to be contradicted.  Mark Shields on PBS made a really good point -- Bush is use to playing to adoring crowds.  He is not use to hearing contrary opinions.  When he does hear them, he acts almost like a child.

    by bonddad on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:23:17 AM PDT

  •  Bullshit Detectors

    You've nailed it. Many of these highly non-ideological voters out there are really looking for three things:
    #1: tough, alpha-male leadership
    #2: honest, directness
    #3: competence, effectiveness

    It's already been demonstrated over and again, that there is a bizarre phenomenon going back to the Reagan era of people agreeing with the Dem candidate on most issues, but preferring the GOPer on character. This has become even more extreme in 2004, when undecided voters like the Dem position on health care, jobs, trade, Iraq, education, you name it. They just have a false image of the highly protected, insulated Bush II. They have been given a distorted, twisted picture of Kerry. As the truth outs, the scales will fall from their eyes.

    by pHunbalanced on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:36:47 AM PDT

    •  Emotion is Why You're Right

      people agreeing with the Dem candidate on most issues, but preferring the GOPer on character.

      Yes because this is a core program of the right, produced and directed by the think-tanks etc.

      Even our using the term "character" is a victory of theirs because the correct term--the neutral term--is "personality."

      The political Right is essentially a marketing corporation. Like any large business, they know that logic and factuality are the least reliable and most expensive way to sell anything. Conversely the most reliable and cheapest way to sell things is with emotion--ideally, the strongest emotions based on our core animal drives and fears.

      That's how they sell food, that's how they sell cars, that's how they sell missile defense, and that's how they sell conservatism and conservative candidates. It's not just that they lie--which they're as willing to do in politics as they once did, and are increasingly allowed to resume in the commercial marketplace. But whether lying or truthful, their approach is emotional, to supress the brain and cheaply, quickly motivate the dependable behavior they want.

      What they found in Reagan was the perfect candidate, a man with perfect emotional appeal. I wouldn't claim they invented him as a candidate but they learned a lot from his example about how much you can fool enough of the people enough of the time.

      As we all understand, our side already has the facts and the issues on our side. While we do need a certain amount of presentation and defense of true facts, we don't need more facts and we don't need more issues.

      We need to do better connecting with those facts and issues, and the key to that is not to frame the logic better or phrase the arguments better, but to match the Republicans' emotionality. We need to focus on those issues that are emotionally resonant, and then conveying them in emotionally effective ways.

      We can do this--in fact we did do it all through the golden age of liberalism through our politicians who learned their craft from the streets and farms upward, through religious and ethnic/cultural leaders, labor leaders. We have to get back to it now.

      by Gooserock on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:32:24 AM PDT

  •  Should have given Milbank credit.

    The guy is doing his job.  Has been for sometime now.  Before it was fashionable among his peer group.

    by SW on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:40:11 AM PDT

    •  they're not all awful

      the WaPo has some good ones, including Pincus, and two reporters named Dana.

      by DemFromCT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:02:44 AM PDT

      •  avoid cece connally

        I don't know about Dana Priest, but Dana Milbank does often seem more than reasonable.

        Cece Conally, however, ranks down there with Cokie Roberts and Andrea Mitchell.

        by TX Unmuzzled on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:43:47 AM PDT

        •  they're not all awful

          but Ceci Connolly is.

          by DemFromCT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:47:27 AM PDT

    •  Dana Milbank...

      media whore par excellence during the 2000 campaign!
      Check out the incomparable Daily Howler  archives to better appreciate Milbank's role in the War on Gore.

      If he's doing his job now, so much the better.  

      by Radiowalla on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:02:46 AM PDT

  •  If this is your insight, excellent job!

    But what really happened was that three illusions were punctured on Thursday. The cartoon image of Bush as the strong resolute commander in chief that has been created out of whole cloth was demonstrated to be bullshit. The cartoon image that they've painted of Kerry as squishy and indecisive was demonstrated to be bullshit. And finally at long last the bogus connection between Saddam and 9/11 was demonstrated to be bullshit. Say what you want about the average voter. He has a relatively functioning bullshit detector.

    by CityofGod on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 10:00:53 AM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      You may wish to check out my blog SW's Energy Gap  The primary topic is the intersection between politics and energy policy.

      by SW on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 10:10:42 AM PDT

  •  I posted a diary on this theme last night

    The Fall of the House of Bush:

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/2/35925/3866

    I really think that puncturing the bubble around him was the biggest outcome of the debates - we are in a virtuous spiral now where the whole Bush strategy is starting to come undone. They don't have any domestic issue they can run to, and people will now start paying attention to the disaster of Iraq and Bush's failure to adequately chase Bin Laden, that leaves Bush with precisely nothing.

    by storme on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 10:36:18 AM PDT

•  Kerry's "indecisiveness"

    Bush to the American Citizenry:

   "Who you gonna believe?  Me or your lyin' eyes?"

    BenGoshi
  __________
  

  by BenGoshi on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:12:10 AM PDT

  •  In fact

    2 of 5 senses are lying to you.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:34:13 AM PDT

    •  Thank you

      Humans are absurdly confident in what they perceive.  It's been my experience that humans are far better at lying to themselves rather than accurately perceiving and accepting reality.

      by paradox on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:02:17 AM PDT

•  Another journalist from Mars

  This article is now a lead in Google: "Bush Wins the Debate". Perhaps the writer could use reminders that she is the only person on Earth who believes that.
  [e-mail]

  by Sprinkles on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:12:14 AM PDT

  •  Debra Saunders

    is a blatantly conservative columnist. They run her regularly in the right wing rag here.

    She's not a journalist. At all.

    by Julia Grey on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:26:35 AM PDT

  •  Google Freeped?

    Does that mean Google has been freeped?

    by lysias on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:45:19 AM PDT

    •  Google Freeped?

      Here's an article on how the google algorithm might favor the conservative POV:
      http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040924-4230.html

      Gaming google can be done but gaming google news would be hard is my guess and probably not worth the effort.

      by storme on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 10:41:37 AM PDT

•  It will still be a tough battle

  Kerry was impressive on Thursday.  What makes the victory especially important is foreign policy was supposed to be Bush's strength.  When it comes to the economy, Bush is very vulnerable -- net loss of jobs, ever-increasing health care costs, massive deficit etc.....   This is where Kerry needs to connect in a bid way to break-through.  Kerry needs to refocus the campaign debate onto domestic issues.

  by bonddad on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:18:14 AM PDT

  •  town hall format

    is supposed to favor bush.  i think this is another misconception.  bush has only spoken to loyalists, while kerry has taken all comers. there are photos of kerry stopping to talk to people holding bush signs & yakking with students thru a window.

    practice makes perfect.  jk has done his homework & is prepared & seasoned.  bush may be in for another rude awakening.

    all the same, i'm happy to raise expectations for bush's "common touch" in the next debate. our side should raise the bar for bush.  he is in his element in a town hall setting.  ;-)

    up is down, black is white.

    by x on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:40:57 AM PDT

    •  I know

      the Republicans are pushing this "Kerry is a debating master" meme for a while.  I don't think this is benefitting them.  For one, Bush has been in office for almost 4 yrs.  He can't benefit from lowered expectations again.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:45:30 AM PDT

      •  I Think There's a Pot of Gold Here

        "Kerry is a debating master" meme for a while.  I don't think this is benefitting them.

        I think we're stepping right around our own pot of gold by failing to make this a core, active focus.

        Any ordinary person who's been doing a job for 4 years would know enough to answer questions about it for a few minutes. Clearly, Bush doesn't know the material, but the material is what he's supposed to have been doing for the last 4 years.

        Concepts like "Doesn't know the material," "what's he been doing?" "he doesn't seem to know" -- in other words directly, succinctly pointing out that this emperor isn't just doing a bad job, he's doing any job.

        His Guinness record-breaking vacation schedule would be a good cite.

        We ain't got time to wait for people to infer.

        by Gooserock on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:44:28 AM PDT

      •  Kerry should be careful tho...

        ..Its better not to underestimate Bush even in the town hall format.  Kerry will have a great opportunity to play more to the audience and link perceptually to the "average voter".  That is as important as at least tying if not outright beating Bush again.  I wouldnt count on Bush falling apart again.  His back is to the wall now and there is no way that he will do that.  The media will call it a win for him if he just stands up without falling, so be prepared for that. But Kerry can still kick Bush's ass in the outcome by continuing to build a solid perception of maturity and knowledge with the voter.  

        by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 09:02:57 AM PDT

  •  Too far?

    I agree with all you say except the part about "refocusing the campaign onto domestic issues."

    Iraq is the overriding problem of this time.  It's a quagmire.  It's killing our young people.  It's sapping our economic vitality.

    What I hope Kerry is able to do is to link Iraq with the economy.  But not "refocus" on the economy with a drift away from Iraq.

    We saw a little bit of what I hoping we see more of this past Thursday when Kerry linked homeland security to tax cuts and Bush took the bait.  What a pretty set-up "security vs. dollars" makes.

    There's the bonanza to me -- if Kerry can continue to weave Iraq into his comments next Friday on the economy, he will deliver another crushing blow to George W.  Perhaps the death blow of the campaign.

    by XOVER on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:41:08 AM PDT

•  They should be

  worried, that is. Their guy got pounded, and the media is going with that theme. The GOP spin machine will try like hell to turn this around, but they know that their "march to victory" spin is gone. That's a full month of spinning down the tubes.

  But, and this is the key point, it's worse than they think. People like Real Clear Politics in the post below are banking on the spin machine to make the debate into something else in the days ahead (Kerry's "Global Test" comment, mostly), but THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE TIME. This weekend will be dominated by the initial impressions/angry face/Kerry's comeback discussion. Then, when the GOP spin machine starts cranking next week . . . sorry boys, we're on to the VP debate on Tuesday. Then the next Presidential debate. The dynamic of these debates is the same as the Democratic primaries in one key way: there's no time to change the story-line of each event before the next one comes along. So the only chance to change the dynamic is to win the next event. Bush damn well better show up with a new plan in the next debate, or this thing will start to avalanche, gathering speed and size until it's barrelling down on Village GOP, threatening to overwhelm the whole thing.

  by BriVT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:21:08 AM PDT

  •  part of kerry's winning negatiation may have been

    to have this debate on Thursday and the next one friday before the wurlitzer/talk radio could gear up the spin machine. weekends are not good days to lie to the masses.

    by DemFromCT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:27:31 AM PDT

    •  don't throw me into the biar patch!

      said brer rabbit!

      i was born & raised in the briar patch!

      all the plans by baker & friends served john kerry more than bush!

      2 minute statement:  bush can't speak more than 1 minute... a slogan ain't that long.

      lights & buzzers:  this was brilliant on the kerry side.  kerry has been speaking to those lights for 20 years!  that they raised the rethugs' ire by their last minute fuferaw is comic!  bush got the only flashing red light of the debate!

      :-D

      i told y'all kerry was a killer.

      & i will state here, in confidence, that edwards is a killer, too.  but i do recommed that our side feign horror & fear at the probability that cheney will hand edwards his ass.

      fair is fair

      by x on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:59:31 AM PDT

      •  Already spinning cheney debate

        Someone referred to the evil cheney going against the Mr. Rogers Edwards.  They said that Cheney has been attacking while on the stump but he will probably bring the "grandfatherly" Cheney to the debate.  You know, the one that smiles and speaks in the soft, reassuring voice (while he sticks in the knife).  They were warning Edwards not to bring the smile and be prepared to attack Cheney.  That sounds like a trap being set to me.

        Attack cheney and smile would be my recipe.  We need a serious man confronting Cheney with his own words but in very politcal speech.  Edwards has gone against Insurance companies and there is no greater evil force than them so we know he can do it.  There is no greater reason for having Edwards as his Vice President than confronting Cheney Tuesday night.  Our lives and our country depend on him.

        Kerry has perfect pitch in the debate.  Serious, but not angry.  Edwards needs to do the same and not let the grandfatherly Cheney out charm him.  And have incredible knowledge about policy to contrast with the many facts that Cheney has lodged in his reptilian brain.

        by GrandmaJ on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 10:49:44 AM PDT

  •  Evidence

    Check out this article from MSNBC: Bush, Kerry shift themes to economy:

    The switch from foreign matters to pocketbook issues comes as the campaigns look ahead to the candidates' second face-to-face meeting on Friday, where undecided voters pose the questions.

    There's some in there about the debate, but the train is moving on down the tracks. It's economy/second debate, now.

    by BriVT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:31:40 AM PDT

    •  OK, one final thing . . .

      Check out the screen grab on the "watch the debate" panel on the page I linked above! It includes a "Bush Grumpy Face"!

      HA! That sound you hear is CW hardening . . .

      by BriVT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:35:09 AM PDT

    •  Danger for Bush

      Will Bush make the same angry faces when undecided voters ask him challenging questions?

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:35:36 AM PDT

      •  A real danger

        The real danger for Bush is that he'll be thinking so hard "don't make that angry face" that he'll come across as stilted or just plain weird. This is what really killed Gore in the second debate. He was thinking so hard about not sighing, he looked comatose.

        Once you get the other guy reacting, you've really got an advantage. And really, does anyone think Bush can simultaneously think of his expression and listen at the same time? I don't really think Bush is outright stupid, but flexible of mind he certainly ain't.

        by BriVT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:04:16 AM PDT

      •  are you kidding?

        Rove will probably make Bush get botoxed so he can't make ANY faces.

        by spamhead on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:39:49 AM PDT

      •  Oliver Willis posted this "beauty"

        Of the Smirker-In-Chief:
        

        by doug r on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 09:17:58 AM PDT

  •  Republican Spin

    The Republican Spin machine is having a hard time right now.  First, I don't think they anticipated being in a defensive position after the debate.  As a result, they are trying to find a way to minimize damage, but not really being effective (in my opinion).

    The only point that I have heard consistantly was Kerry is a great debator and Bush is plain spoken in a way that connects with the American people.  This is the line from Gingrich and Terry Holt.  Considering that 62 million Americans tuned in, I think this line from the Republicans minimizes the importance that voters placed on the event.

    by bonddad on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:31:58 AM PDT

    •  Shifting to Diversion

      Yes, they're having trouble spinning, so they're pretty hard on diverting back to the pre-debate memes. They're getting almost out of breath fast-talking over hosts and opposing guests about Kerry's incessant flip-flops and weasling etc.

      They aren't giving the debate a single syllable of attention they're not forced to give it.
      

      by Gooserock on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:52:43 AM PDT

    •  That won't work

      ..they cant run the meme about Bush's connection to the common man because the common man saw not a person they could relate to, but an irritable, immature little boy who didn't prepare.  Very different than had he been calm and plain spoken.  He looked and got whipped.  No one identifies or wants to identify with that.

      by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 09:07:51 AM PDT

  •  The Wurlitzer

    was caught unaware when Bush did so badly in the debate.  They tried to make the CW to "it was a draw" but had to back off.

    I think they had already had the spin written: Bush is resolute, Kerry is elitist and a flip-flopper.  That didn't work out.  They're flailing for a theme, but won't have time.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:48:29 AM PDT

•  Kerry Sweeps 3 Focus Groups

  

  In this group of 2R, 1D, and 1I - they were all very happy with Kerry, and became Kerry Leaners,  but they're still holding out for the Domestic Policy Debate.

  I saw three Focus Groups.  One for MSNBC, one for NBC, and one for PBS Newshour.   Kerry won overwhelmingly.

  In the NBC video Kerry and PBS Audio Kerry gets some new Leaners, including Republicans; and everyone seemed more comfortable with the Idea of President Kerry, even the Republicans.

  The main issue I heard people were concerned about - The Draft.

  You'll Need Real Audio to play the last two links.  And you'll have to sit through a commercial for the first link.

  5of 6 Undecideds call it for Kerry in NBC Video

  Undecided Voters on PBS

  Fallows and Hall  Judge the Debate
  

  by Al Rodgers on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:29:24 AM PDT

•  Tis the critical subject

  Yea -- this is critical, how to move those leaning toward Bush into the Kerry fold, and I agree, these probable moderate Republicans have to be given a reason to move.  My own take on Thursday is the message of competence.  At least Kerry seems independent of his coached responses, and can dig into the core issues in ways that people thurst for right now, and he depends on an arrangement of facts, and not, various constructions and fantasy.  Kerry seems comfortable talking about them -- to each question he could create a direct answer based on what he knows -- and how he interprets the issue. Bush just doesn't have that range -- and it is the presentation of the range that will impress and move those centerists.  

  Kerry has to do much more than this -- he has to keep the base excited, he has to turn out the new or infrequent voters -- and those require different tactics.  But in the end it is that middle of the curve that will win it.  

  by Sara on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:38:13 AM PDT

  •  1980

    More and more, this election is looking like 1980.

    by lysias on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:50:06 AM PDT

    •  Those leaners

      are old time republicans.  They need to hear about the Eisenhower endorsement.  And other endorsements from establishment republicans to feel even more comfortable.

      Kerry should get ads about endorsements on the air.  Widen these people's comfort zone.

      by GrandmaJ on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 10:54:51 AM PDT

    •  Exactly, Totally Right on This, Lysias

      I want Kerry to win more than I want to be right, however ...

      I have written frequently since I joined this blog a couple of months ago that this election is a reply of 1980.

      Carter was viewed as inept on both foreign and domestic fronts. The Iran hostage situation had paralyzed him into a "Rose Garden" strategy they felt would insulate him from attack. But with gas lines around the block, inflation high, the "misery index" higher than during Ford's presidency, people knew they didn't want Carter.

      The public knew RWR, but they were fearful what he might do as president. That is, until the debate, which changed their minds. Reagan not only was unthreatening, but he didn't drool, fall asleep, or trip on the mic cord. In fact, his affable humor came out and humanized the demon that had been created.

      Reagan's "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" theme was an out of the park homer that stuck to Carter like ticks on a dog.

      I recall reading Time or Newsweek's Special Election Issue after it was all over. Three days before the election, which the pundits had said was so very close, Carter was called by his staff to a briefing. They told him it was all over. The undecideds had moved in droves to RWR.

      We have a similar theme this year. The Repubs were successful through late September to paint Kerry as "risky" -- a man who could not make up his mind. At a time of war, this is a menacing threat of its own to the American people, regardless of how misguided BushCo has been.

      But Kerry's performance in the first debate -- the most widely watched debate since 1992 -- 60-some million viewers -- has given people pause to consider two things: maybe their preconceived notions have been wrong about John Kerry; and maybe their suspicions of George W. Bush have been right.

      It can't be both. Either Bush is right about Kerry, or Kerry is right about Bush. Kerry's performance has done more than the pundits say -- people are doing more than just giving him "a second look." Yeah, some are stuck in that mode. Others have gotten the answer they were looking for: Kerry is immeasurably better than Bush.

      And the icing on the cake? Kerry has re-energized his base to post Dem Convention levels.

      This election could go two ways: a close Bush victory, which is unlikely for an incumbent who is victorious; or a potential landslide for Kerry, which is more likely for a challenger in the absence of a strong incumbent. The latter scenario seems to be shaping up.

      The remaining debates are crucial. The degree with which the American people tune into the VP debate, and Presidential debates II and III, will speak volumes about how people are making up their minds, or give us a clue as to how they've made up their minds already.

      by RevJoe on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 11:51:09 PM PDT

•  If Kerry won i could live with it...

   Wow. I keep hearing this the last couple of weeks from wingnut friends. Some very way out there on the  fringe.

  by kpinvt on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:40:13 AM PDT

  •  Really?

    That's an interesting signature.  That is preciesly the way to end racism.

    by paradox on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:05:24 AM PDT

    •  Ummm....

      It didnt' work for Jesse Helms...

      by Night Runner on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:13:37 AM PDT

      •  Worked for the Obamas

        Worked for Tiger Woods.

        No, it didn't work with Jefferson.

        Still, one great ray of hope for me is our biracial children.  Woods and Obama are especially going to bring forth a great deal of progress. I hope.

        I didn't mean to contradict you.  It's just that I love this topic.  Immense progress from sex.  Too cool.

        by paradox on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:35:50 AM PDT

•  Sorry

  I have absolutely no respect for people who are still undecided. They simply have not been paying attention at all. After all that has gone down in the last four years how can one be undecided? I actually have more respect for people who have made up their minds to vote for Bush for whatever misguided reasons. At least they believe in something.

  I've listened to these undecided voters. Some appear to be intelligent enough. But what kind of person has no emotional response one way or the other to what has taken place in this country during the last four years? These are the people who are going to decided the direction of our country? Good God!

  by Rp on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:53:16 AM PDT

  •  Amen!

    I completely agree.  At least the wingnuts have squeezed some sort of conclusions, however misguided, out of their little noggins in reaction to what they've perceived.  But these undecideds, I tell you, are another breed altogether.  What rock have they been under?  Or are they just desperate to get on TV, and they realize flaunting indecisiveness will give them their 15 seconds?

    by tsurube on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:19:25 AM PDT

  •  It's not that they have no response

    It's that they have multiple responses: they're ambiguous. It's not that they feel neither way --- they feel both ways. I think many of the undecideds are Libertarians (who are basically screwed), who want freedom everywhere. Social freedom, market freedom --- less government. So, they lean one way when they hear certain things, and they lean another way when other issues are brought up. True conservatives also aren't sure where to turn.

    Beyond that, some people are (gasp!) complicated. You can be pro-choice and homophobic, anti-union and anti-war, or even pro-Iraq war and against the PATRIOT Act, etc. People are not nifty political cut-outs, and, if they aren't following carefully, they get confused by the spin. They don't understand why there's nobody who represents their values, but they want to vote. They just don't know what to vote for with so few options and so much spin.

    Ally

    by ally on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:50:32 AM PDT

    •  It's easy

      Bush sucks!

      by doug r on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 09:22:28 AM PDT

•  Kerry rope-a-dope

  Kerry also psyched out the Bush folks.  

  They gave a weak answer to Diane Sawyer about Iraq and it gave the impression he hadn't worked out a short, strong one for the debate.

  Last night, on Washington Week, Gloria Borger said about his 87 billion dollar reply, which was a very strong concise sound bite -- Finally a good reply -- What were they waiting for?
  Well, Gloria, they were waiting for the debate!!  It's lot more effective to pull the great line when someone is not expecting it.

  Another psych out:  On the day of the debate, the Kerry folks complained about the lights and how distracting they would be.

  Meanwhile, they were practicing with the lights, to get the timing perfect.  And they were right on.

  "Perhaps even more important than any particular answer was Mr. Kerry's intense preparation for the rigorous rules of the debate.
  While Mr. Bush's advisers said the president spent much of this week in informal, conversational sessions simply tossing lines back and forth, Mr. Kerry practiced for hours with replicas of the lights, developing four or five ways to sum up quickly. He also devoted much effort to the 30-second rebuttal the candidates could ask for." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/politics/campaign/02strategy.html?pagewanted=2

  Karl Rove loses the genuis mantle.  Way to go, Kerry staff.

  by maineiac on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:54:12 AM PDT

  •  My favorite

    rope-a-dope was from the day of the debate. The Kerry people made a huge deal about the lights, bitching and moaning in front of the press about them and saying they would take them down. Of course, they did no such thing. All they were doing was focusing the press attention on the lights, knowing Kerry had it down cold and hoping Bush would have trouble with them. LOL!

    by BriVT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:00:19 AM PDT

    •  Brought to my Attention ...

      ... that Kerry has familiarized himself with these lights previously -- like the past 20 years in the Senate, where they are used constantly! K/E out-Roved Rove on this one! ROFLMAO!

      by RevJoe on Sun Oct 03, 2004 at 12:17:36 AM PDT

•  Kerry's Common Touch

  I think a lot of voters are also going to be surprised by Kerry's common touch in the town hall format. Even if Bush does better in that format (certainly he'll be trained to lay off the annoyed faces), people aren't expecting to see what a nice, decent guy Kerry is. They've been conditioned to think of him as a remote aristocrat.

  In reality, Kerry has a more honest attitude with real people. You can see it in something as simple as the standard Kissing the  Baby. Kerry always looks at the baby, tries to get a reaction from him/her, and then laughs with the mother, or some  other normal kind of interaction. Bush holds the baby up like a hunk of ham over his  head and then  hands it back like it smells.

  The  next awakening for America is that Kerry actually is MORE of a normal guy than Bush is. After all, he's been talking and walking among us these  past four years, while  Bush has been locked in his Winter Palace with Karl Rasputin.

  by Hrubec on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:55:22 AM PDT

  •  Can W be trained?

    I've been thinking about this. Any rational person would conclude as you did -- he'll iron out the smirks and find a way to compensate, etc. But W also seems to have gone off the deep end, some speculating a narcissistic personality disorder or even a neurodegenerative disorder. He's clearly messed up. I keep thinking if anyone even tried to "train" him, his infallibility complex (not unlike a 2 year old) would tell them to fuck off.

    by TX Unmuzzled on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:52:07 AM PDT

    •  The annoyed faces

      are related fundamentally to Bush's personality.  I don't see how they are going to change that.  All it will do is make him aware of it, which may turn out even stranger.  I thought the annoyed faces were so that he wouldn't smirk.  Maybe they'll let him smirk away.  That will play real well when some voter asks about casualties in Iraq or something like that.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:59:24 AM PDT

      •  Changing smirks

        This really made me laugh out loud thinking of W being overly self-conscious about his facial expressions.  Trying to control what is a truly natural reflex is just going to come out very very wierd.  This is someone who can't chew gum and walk at the same time, so forcing him to be constantly thinking about his face and thinking about questions is going to be very humerous indeed.

        by opinionated on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 09:27:00 AM PDT

      •  I think he can

        Give that blank stunned face instead.
        Or this classic:
        

        by doug r on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 09:32:54 AM PDT

      •  faces

        I don't see how they are going to change that.  All it will do is make him aware of it, which may turn out even stranger.

        Sure they can change it - just shoot him full of Thorazine.

        How much you want to bet that Bush goes through the next debate thoroughly medicated?

        by NYCO on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 11:25:32 AM PDT

        •  It's Hard for Bush ...

          Whether he's excused because he's just so passionate, or whether he feels guilty about his thuggery, one thing is certain: Bush wears his heart on his sleeve.

          He cannot help himself. It's true what everyone's saying about his style and those with whom he's surrounded himself. Bush has not been challenged by the opinions of others, even when those opinions are based on facts.

          Bush has always gotten his way; he's left the dirty work for others to clean up. This was true for his life in the military, his marriage, his business dealings, his service as Gov of Texas.

          No one dares challenge him -- he's dismissive, proven again and again in interviews when he doesn't get the respect he thinks he automatically deserves. No one is allowed to question him. The bar is set low so that he can hide behind this tragically mortal flaw.

          As a result, he's thin-skinned, his temper is quick to flare, he gets angry -- and it's all apparent in his manner.

          Besides content and form, Kerry must continue to focus, as he did remarkably well in the first debate, on keeping Bush on the defensive. This is easy to do, given Bush's record of failure, not only in Iraq, but on just about every domestic issue that impacts middle America.

          The chimp cannot help himself. The discomfort he holds in his body has to find a release. It will either come out of his mouth -- a very bad move -- or be written all over his face -- as it was last Thursday night. This is something Bush cannot control nor can he learn to control after all this time. It's just too late.

          by RevJoe on Sun Oct 03, 2004 at 12:01:57 AM PDT

    •  Really hard to say

      I watched him the next day on tv at one of his rallies. He literally gets a cheer and applause line for Every. Single. Sentence. He also relies extensively on sarcasm and ridicule to gain the effect he desires.

      Both of those sources of validation are absent in the debate situation. (Though still not sure - will town hall participants be able to applaud?)

      I think in the town hall venue, he will use the cloying, smarmy smirk as opposed to the irritated, defensive smirk. It won't work any better for someone like me, but I think there is a segment of our population that buys that stuff, even laps it up.

      Kerry on the other hand will try to relate through respect for the questioner and his/her concerns. Once again, we are in the position of hoping against hope that the average American is intelligent, and that they value intelligence as an important character trait.

      by Hrubec on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:06:26 AM PDT

      •  Pressure is on

        Wonder how Bush will feel knowing that Kerry is on stage with him, ready to correct every distortion and/or error.  Plus there will be skeptics in the audience as well.  Bush has not had to share a stage with an opponent and that is a very different dynamic than talking to adoring fans.  I've said it before and I'll say it again--Bush has to defend his record.  He will sympathize with those who have had it tough, but he still has to respond to Kerry's points.  Otherwise, he will look like he's out of touch with reality.  Bush is in an unenviable position, after four years as President he can't capitalize on the "gee, he's not as dumb as I thought" vote anymore.  There is nothing in his experience that has ever prepared him for this.

        by Night Runner on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:21:48 AM PDT

        •  True

          Kerry has benefitted from facing protestors at his campaign appearances.  Bush's team hauls them away and jails them before they can speak.  Who will be better prepared?

          by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 11:13:31 AM PDT

•  Bush cooties......

  I coined this term in a rather long post in the "Iraq open thread", and it might be a useful point of reference to tip undecideds.  If we can't get the rest of our former allies to help in the stabilization of Iraq, we will be stuck there for years and years.

  Bush has pissed off our allies to the point that they would be committing political suicide by cooperating with him.  Our friends don't dislike America....they distrust Bush.

  JK can enlist the support of world leaders who won't have to fear catching the "Bush cooties" and thereby alienating their constituencies at home.

  by roxtar on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 06:56:31 AM PDT

•  Disaster for Bush on many levels

  Bush didn't just lose the debate on Thursday, his performance underscored three very important points
  
  

  1. He doesn't work well under pressure
     
  2. He dislikes being told anything that contradicts what he "believes"
     
  3. He hasn't thought issues through beyond the bumper sticker level

  This wasn't just an off night--his performance was emblematic of his entire presidency.

  Regarding the upcoming debate--Bush, I expect, will make the classic mistake of trying to overcompensate for the first debate by being overly aggressive.  In this case, he will ramp up his bullying and hectoring.  Kerry needs to play this one soft.  As Bush whines and pleads, Kerry continues to exude confidence and command.

  Four years ago, Bush went into the second debate with Gore confident that he had done well in the first one.  This time he goes in under great pressure to defend his record AND appear relaxed.  This is when all the chickens come home to roost--you can't make up for four years of not being on top of things and a lifetime of not being interested in policy in less than one week.  The killer is that, as the meme goes, he's got 30 minutes of material (if that) that he has to stretch over 90 minutes.  How many times will he say "my opponent wants to raise your taxes" before everybody realizes he doesn't have anything else to say?

  by Night Runner on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:08:12 AM PDT

•  It happens in stages

  First, you get the Republican-leaning undecideds squarely on the fence, which many suddenly are thanks to the first debate, and then you tip them to your side.  If they're still on the fence on 11/2, many of them won't vote at all, which still helps Kerry even if we'd prefer to get their votes outright.

  by loudGizmo on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:18:55 AM PDT

•  FOX story spreading

  New York Daily News picks up the FOX Karl Cameron lies story.

  Here's a peek:

  Insiders at Fox said network execs were furious, but that Cameron probably wouldn't be fired.

   The news network, whose motto is: "We report you decide," has been criticized as having a conservative tilt that favors Republicans.

   "We're simply moving on from this, we have no further comment," Schur told The News.

   When reached by phone yesterday, Cameron said he had to catch a flight and hung up.
  

   
  (full article here)  

  The article goes on to compare this Cameron twit to Dan Rather.  So apparently a little gullibility in pursuing a story on a candidate is just as despicable as completely fabricating a mean-spirited, mocking "story" about a candidate.  Fair and balanced, indeed.

  Also note that the Daily News in the clip above appears incapable of writing a paragraph consisting of more than one sentence.  Such depth!  Such insightfulness!

  by tsurube on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:35:56 AM PDT

  •  the NY Times is the paper of record

    the daily news and NY Post are tabloids. They have significant 'readership' if you can call 2nd grade level stories reading. been that way forever... but they have good sports sections (if you prefer your read meat rabid).

    by DemFromCT on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:42:42 AM PDT

•  Of course, there's always the Third Way.

  Let's face it, Bush isn't really polling over 50% in any unweighted poll. and although something like 78% of his supporters claim that their vote is "rock solid" for him, there are a lot of "undecideds" and disaffected republicans that may just stay home on November 3 (Election Day for Republicans) =)

  the poll numbers, as Ruy Teixera and several other analysts have  stated, Bush's poll munbers represent his ceiling of support. Kerry's are more likely to be the floor. and SOMEBODY is going to get 50% of the votes cast. Nader is going to be a total non-factor, as many of us predicted, given that he's not even going to be on a lot of state ballots. I suspect that a lot of people who don't like Bush, but aren't ready to make the leap to Kerry, might  leave the top of the ballot blank.

  if Chimpy performs as poorly in the next 2 debates (that's assuming they take place), look for low turnout for Bush. which makes OUR GITV efforts more important than ever.

  by susanp on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:41:08 AM PDT

  •  gOtv

    sorry, my bad =)

    by susanp on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:52:17 AM PDT

•  Let's face it ...

  In every other aspect of our lives, if an individual who was responsible for a job,  a project, a team sport, or owns any type of a postion of authority were to provide answers as incoherent, self-serving, indefensible, and at worst, childish, in the support of their charged responsibilities as Bush did on Thursday night - they would, in all probability, be fired, demoted, or branded as a mindless idiot.

  Like many of us, I've been in positions of authority for almost twenty years in business, and if I had ever walked into an important meeting with the CEO and gave that type of performance, there would be no doubt in my mind that I would have been shown the door. ("Hey, you don't understand that the stuff I do is really hard work." Spare me.)

  So, for anyone to say that after the performance on Thursday that they are still undecided, demonstrates a total lack of mental fortitude.

  But what's worse, we have a bunch of business owners and other captains of industry - who would fire a subordinate in hearbeat for providing the same moron-based answers as Der Leader - sitting back and applauding this imbecile. We have those in media that understand image is everything and that one slip in self-portrayal can be fatal to one's career, fawning over this jackass and excusing his inability to debate as well as a junior high schooler.  We have evangelicals and others who believe in personal accountability and assuming responsibility for one's actions in order to find eternal salvation, giving this guy a pass every time he throws blame against the wall to see if it sticks.

  That's what scary and also damning about the  people in this county and our ability to function in the world.

  So, what will the debates mean to us ?  After nearly four years of this nightmare, coming from the concept of a practical purpose, there simply should have been no need for debates at this point.  The conclusions should have been reached long ago, the facts have been so overtly clear.

  The debates will add little clarity, IMHO, to the minds of these "undecideds" ... unless this is the first time they decided to climb out of their self-imposed boxes of absolute seclusion.

  by neverontheright on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:43:34 AM PDT

  •  Beg to differ

    The debates are crucial.  They are the ONLY opportunity to hold Bush accountable for his policies and to cut through Bush's bullshit.  When you have Republicans saying they could live with Kerry as President something very important has happened.   This is not just about the undecideds, it's about watching two candidates under pressure.  On Thursday, the entire hundred-million dollar Republican strategy of portraying Kerry as a weak flip-flopper went up in smoke.  If a chunk of Republicans just stay home on November 2, that is just as important as persuading the persuadables.

    by Night Runner on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:58:44 AM PDT

    •  I hope you're right ...

      I'm hosting a house party tonight; the majority of folks are Repugs (unfortunately, most of my associates here in the Land of Bush are Bush-lickers).

      I'll be interested to hear their spin.  In the past, they have vigorously stood by Bush no matter how ridculous it made them sound. I do believe that, internally, they know he is an imbecile, but they, like the many Republicans I know, have mind-sets that loyalty to the party is everything.  They worship it like some type of a golden calf in the wilderness.

      I've yet to hear of one that admits they won't vote for Bush or will stay home.

      by neverontheright on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:10:30 AM PDT

      •  I'd love to hear how your informal

        party focus group goes/went. Let us know. Here in my neck of the woods it's pretty liberal and most Bush supporters are laying low and keeping their mouths shut. But I know it's not representative of the rest of the country (one phone call or email to my relatives in the midwest and west clears that misconception right up).

        by hyperstation on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:35:15 AM PDT

  •  The scariest part is

    that miserable failure still has his finger on the nuke button. Until the end of the cold war, no president was tolerated for that kind of incompetence.  It's unfortunate that sustained peace and prosperity only weakens discipline.

    by msl on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:23:13 AM PDT

•  reality

  which of these propositions is more likely to be true:

  the debate converted a kerry voter into a bush voter.

  or

  the debate converted a bush voter into a kerry voter.

  and now that you have estimated the effect of the debate on committeds, extrapolate the effect on undecideds.....

  that's reality.

  by roxtar on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:48:11 AM PDT

  •  Forget Soccer Moms

    You are forgetting the Polish-American voters.

    Kerry might have the Nascar dads and the Security Mom's, but I fear the Polish-American voters might lose us this election.

    :&

    by Wes Wing on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:32:34 AM PDT

    •  Nothing to fear

      I know you meant this as a joke, but one of the interesting things that has happened is that the old East European Cold War Republican bloc has crumbled.  Strangely, Bush/Cheney have ignored this part of the old Republican base.  Moreover, the ill-defined "war on terror" has meant that Putin has completely outmaneuvered Bush on the Chechen issue.  Bush's policies have really strengthened Putin's hand and anyone for whom Eastern Europe still matters sees this.

      Oh, and Bush is now chummy with a lot of scuzzy politicians, like the President of Ukraine, just because they're willing to volunteer their troops for cannon-fodder duty in Iraq.

      by Night Runner on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:50:38 AM PDT

      •  Isn't Poland

        withdrawing most of its troops?

        by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 11:14:48 AM PDT

•  distressed Bush supporters

  I think this debate had a greater effect on Republicans then we realize.

  Spontaneously yesterday two of my Republican clients brought up the debate. (I am a closeted Democrat in a very conservative county in N.C.)

  The first one was a life long straight ticket Republican. She was very distressed about Bush's performance and felt that he must be in the process of a mental break down from the stress of Iraq. She feels very strongly about the importance of voting and she is in a fluster this year because she doesn't think that she can vote for Bush. She said she would never vote for "Scary Kerry". She was really troubled.  (I fibbed a little and told her that a lot of my friends were writing in McCain because we had the same fears. She said she might do the same now.)

  The second was a construction contractor that timidly admitted that Kerry had some better ideas about Iraq and also felt that Bush was having some sort of mental breakdown. After affirming that I was a Kerry supporter, he admitted that he would be voting for Kerry.

  I know that anecdotal incidences like these don't mean much, but the utter distress of these two people caught me off guard.  I am used to Bush behaving like he did in the debate. But for these two people you could tell it was the first time for them to really see Bush's shortcomings. I think that he had a major hit with this debate, and I will be interested to see the new polls.

  As a side note: These two people own and operate two very successful businesses here in town. They both come across as very intelligent and informed. However I had another big surprise in our discussions.  Neither one had heard about the Abu Gharib prison incident or the pictures of the Iraq prisoners.  Their ignorance has me very depressed.

  by Wes Wing on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:54:43 AM PDT

  •  The right wingers

    at my work were very distressed and quiet.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:02:09 AM PDT

  •  Is it necessary to stay in the closet?

    I just can't imagine what it would be like to have to hide your political affiliation.  This is such a key part of my being that it would be very painful to keep it underground.

    I was going to suggest that you move, but your vote counts a lot more right where you are!  And you are doing some sneaky, stealth moves against those unsuspecting good burghers of the community!  

    by Radiowalla on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:14:27 AM PDT

    •  I'm one of those people

      who don't care if people know what I think.  I don't try to push it on people, but I will say it if asked.  The important thing is not to put down anyone else's belief.

      by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 11:16:02 AM PDT

•  Bridge to the future

  My suggestion:

  Didnt Clinton ran on it w/ Dole,  showing Dole as the past, has been?

  Kerry is fresh beginning, will open new worlds that Bush closed, technology, research, achievement, renewable resources, innovations, telecommunication, world peace.  While Bush is Oil, returning to the past, old, and failed ideas.

  When I see Kerry winning my hope is to bring back the Cllinton years of prosperity, peace, technology, optimism, freshness and also bring back the ClintonTeam that made this possible.

  Perhaps an Ad showing Bush and Old ways 19th century w/ pollution,  and Kerry on the future.
  

  by timber on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:56:16 AM PDT

•  Radio Address

  The whitehouse news page seems to indicate that they posted two different versions of Bush's radio address, and then deleted the older one.  Does anybody know what changed?
  

  by silence on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:58:42 AM PDT

  •  Page update

    They've updated the page, but I saved a copy.

    by silence on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:00:08 AM PDT

    •  Image of old page

      I've posted an image of the relavent section of the old page here.
      

      If you look at the current web site, you can see that they're starting their numbering with "-1" on the end of the file name, where as normally they leave out the "-X" for the first item posted.

      by silence on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:06:58 AM PDT

•  Kerry Beautiful Triple-axel flips Vs. GWB's flops

  On Thursday a case of flip-flops: Beautiful triple-axel flips from John Kerry and absolutely dumb-founding flops from George Bush!

  The shocker this Thursday, was that this was a sitting President of the United States! I could see that John Kerry looked almost embarrassed for GWB's pathetic attempts at wriggling out of the various corners he found himself caught. My own kids were rolling on the floor laughing at GWB's facial expressions or lack thereof, and I had a hard time telling myself that I needed to inculcate in them a little respect for the POTUS; but I lacked any conviction myself. It's been so long since I have lost all respect for the man that I was sure my children would sense my insincerity and lose all respect for me!

  Let's review Kerry's exquisitely choreographed mental footwork, before we go to the unpleasant task of looking at `ole George - a pure case of substance versus flim-flam if there ever was any!

  Outreach, outreach, outreach: One of the first things that struck me about Kerry was his sense of connectedness, to the world at large, to the current and potential allies, and even to the Muslims. In his opening comments was his expression of outreach to the Muslim community - this is the first and only time either of the candidates makes any mention of the vast resource that law-abiding Muslims in the US and outside have the potential of becoming. Instead of converting every living Muslim into a human bomb, and or trying to eliminate them as in Iraq, a job equivalent to emptying the ocean, let's try Kerry's way; be intelligent enough to differentiate between the few bad guys and the 167 billion god-fearing, hard-working people of the Islamic faith. Mr. Kerry help us find our humanity back, once again!

  Judgement supersedes resoluteness: The second take-away offered by Kerry clearly, was that judgement must always supersede resoluteness, choosing correctly supersedes being steadfast in your wrongness! If you chase with steady determination after the wrong rabbithole, you are going to come home without a rabbit. When you see two similar looking rabbit holes, you use your god-given instincts, your sense of smell, hearing, sight...everything you have, to decide which hole to go after. Bush went after the wrong hole. Must've been something to do with his lack of sight, lack of some sensory or extra-sensory perception, some instinct, some understanding. Can we afford a President who is tone-deaf, or worse misreads all cues and signals? On 9/10 maybe, not on 9/12 and after.

  Oh so resolute! `Now that we're there let's get the job done' -  he wanted to give the President all the authority he needed to make credible threats of going there to flush out Saddam Hussein's WMD without actually going there; but finding ourselves in the `incredible mess that is Iraq' without a plan for the peace he yearns to clean up the mess, the way only he will - for identifying the problem is half the battle won. Mistaking rosy dreams for reality will only get us into more quagmire.

  His keen grasp of issues: Even the most misinformed can express virtuous goals - `I want to make our country safe', I want to be a leader'...I would rather throw my lot with a leader that is able to identify problems and develop long term goals without cue-cards from his advisors! Kerry sprinkled each and every response with a keen sharp observation of issues to be dealt with, problems that should not have occurred but need to be corrected, and concrete ideals that need to be realized if America needed to move forward. "Convince Iraq that we are not long-term occupiers", differentiate between Al-Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, he knew the history of sanctions in Iran which pre-dated GWB, his awareness of the impact of our overstretched military on distant threats such as Darfur - the evidence was there that here was a man who has a multi-dimensional grasp of the complex world we live in, not a man that lives by the slogan of the day.

  A Man who learns from history: His many references to US ordeals of the past reflects a man who learns from the lessons of history. He even quoted his opponent's father, who said in his book that he did not go Iraq because there was no viable `exit' strategy! His knowledge about the right of preemption assumed by every American President throughout the cold-war, without a single instance of the actual exercise of that right! He appears to understand well that a threat that can manipulate world behavior loses a lot of potency when it is utilized indiscriminately.

  A man who offers us a fresh start: Our frontline soldiers, our allies, the rest of world, and we ourselves are weary from all the second-guessing - no WMDs, faked intelligence, Abu Ghraib scandals, hundred thousand-plus hours of unread/untranslated  FBI intelligence tapes, and the list goes on. John Kerry showed us in himself a new leader who can correct the mistakes of the past, and avoid new ones, while charting a new course towards actually achieving positive goals, peace and security in the Middle East. Under his leadership the US will once again be able to exercise some moral authority in addressing the N.Korean, Iranian and Nuclear proliferation issues.

  A man of humility and grace and cleverness: He gracefully submitted to the error of his speaking-style in the endlessly replayed "I was for it before I was against it", but cleverly juxtaposed it against Bush's $200 billion misadventure.

  In the end, that Thursday, yes I saw an American President I will be immensely proud of - in 2005!

  by LibertyGuard on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 07:58:59 AM PDT

  •  The only laugh of the night

    Was when Bush said "I know who attacked us."  The laugh wasn't because he told a joke.

    by Unstable Isotope on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:03:55 AM PDT

•  Bush Ads

  What worries me is that the Republican's have a new series of ads that lie and hit Kerry hard.
  Unlike the mocking wind suffer ad that fell flat, these ads are well produced and serious.

  by elvis56 on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:00:09 AM PDT

•  Kerry and his opponent, the president

  One point in the Knight-Ridder story linked above leapt out at me:  

  . . . his criticisms found their mark but were tempered with enough respect for the presidency he did not come across as harsh.

   

  There's been some comment here and in the mainstream media about Kerry's missed opportunities to go after Bush, a notion that he let Hard Worker off the hook too often.  Part of this is because of the dynamics of debate, but mostly it was Kerry playing it just right.  Bush is, for worse (no better about it), the president, and most of us respect the presidency even when it has been fouled.  Kerry began the process of separating His Fraudulency from that respect in the first debate, but he didn't push it so far that it offended the national audience.  The man has a good ear.

  He can continue the process of weaning Americans from identifying the toad with the office in the subsequent debates -- steadily, respectfully but relentlessly.  At some point, he should stop referring to Bush as the president and begin calling him what Bush has called him throughout the campaign, "my opponent."  At that point, Kerry will assume the mantle, and Americans can begin to see Kerry as Mr. President and Bush as Mr. Weedchopper.

  And speaking of good ears, did anyone else notice how enormous Bush's ears looked at the debate?  I know his big flappers have been steady ammunition for cartoonists throughout his public career, but it's as though the ears themselves are aspiring to match the caricature.  When we age, cartilage builds up on our ears and noses and makes them bigger relative to our sagging faces, but I think all that hard work of the presidency has accelerated the process in Bush's case.  Pinocchio's nose grew as he lied; Bush's ears grow as he refuses to listen to anyone.

  by Vico on Sat Oct 02, 2004 at 08:09:59 AM PDT

  •  His ears aren't getting bigger!

    They just LOOK bigger because his brain is getting smaller!