Maybe YOU trust the FDA!!! Personally, I trust the FDA to say one thing this week and then reverse their statment in about three years when they find out what they endorsed causes cancer or heart attacks. It's funny that the same people who "don't trust the government to run healtchare" do trust the government to determine what is safe in healtchare! If you REALLY believe that Canadian drugs are not allowed into this country because of safety issues, and you're not speaking politically to support your candidate, you don't have any idea about health care in this country. I work in a hospital, treat patients every day. Drug companies and insurance companies RUN health care!

Kerry owned Bush in every debate and yesterday was no different. The only real difference was when Bush went into his freaky born-again religious testimony that made me truly frightened that this idiotic, cowardly, military-deserting, no-lipped, lying, religious zealot has his finger on the button.

I can't wait for election day to roll around so he will be removed and America, and the entire world will be more free and safer.

[quote=Pittslp]Personally, I trust the FDA to say one thing this week and then reverse their statment in about three years when they find out what they endorsed causes cancer or heart attacks.[quote]

Name one drug the FDA has approved and then later pulled the in three years or less when extra experiments prove the drug causes cancer.

The FDA has learn many lessons in releasing drugs too quick and now wait for Canada and Europe to test drugs on humans before authorizing the drug for the US. Should we go into the number of drugs Canada and Europe have released that have cused undesirable effects in paitence that they raced to release?

[quote=Pittslp]It's funny that the same people who "don't trust the government to run healtchare" do trust the government to determine what is safe in healtchare! If you REALLY believe that Canadian drugs are not allowed into this country because of safety issues, and you're not speaking politically to support your candidate, you don't have any idea about health care in this country. I work in a hospital, treat patients every day. Drug companies and insurance companies RUN health care![/quote]

Yes the same drug companies that are in Canada. As was pointed out:[QUOTE=Mysterious]The drugs here in Canada ARE EXACTLY THE SAME DRUGS YOU GUYS HAVE IN THE USA.... EXACTLY! The vast majority of the drug companies in Canada creating the drugs are either US based, US owned, and straight subsiduaries of US companies. [/QUOTE] These drug companies are the same. All of them. No matter where you are.

What is the difference between America and other countries, let say Canada. The FDA. The FDA implies more regulations on the drugs allowed into the US then any other country.

Now for the lesson on drugs: CDER test all the drugs from the FDA. CDER released a little book called From Test Tube to Patient which explains why the CDER and the FDA is far superior then any other country.

First of all, Kerry did not attempt to bring Cheney's daughter into the debate; he brought her into the debate as an example to counter Bush's wishy-washy answer that he didn't know if homosexuality was a choice or a fact of nature. It should have been evident that he was not chiding or casting aspersions on the Cheney family for having a lesbian daughter.

Why is it okay for Mary Cheney's parents to volunteer the fact of their daughter's homosexuality to campaign audiences, but it is not okay for Kerry to bring it up, especially when it has been in the news for several months now? Public knowledge is public knowledge.

Mrs. Cheney acted as if this was something shameful that Kerry brought up, some kind of family tragedy that her one daughter is not a heterosexual. If that is how they feel about it, then I understand why they would not want to have it brought up, although I would feel kind of funny about that if I were Mary Cheney.

But if the Cheneys are just angry that Kerry used it to score a point against the attitudes of their Fearless Leader and his righteous minions, that's another issue altogether.

Which is it?

I think Kerry brought it up fairly tactfully. Had he been allowed to address the President directly, he could have instead asked, "Tell me, Mr. President, when did you make the choice to be heterosexual and not to be homosexual?" It would have pointed out just how untenable the position is that a person would choose to be gay.

Senator Kerry was very effective in this last debate. While George W. Bush did recover from his fumbles in the previous two debates, he did not manage to appear in command of the room or the conversation. But he does get high marks for consistently looking incredulous that anyone would dare criticize him in his presence.

1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?

I have been biased in my assessment by the type of day I had. PE and I were scheduled for two hours of volunteer time at the local Kerry HQ. It was a day that started off with everyone quoting, and laughing at, the Tony Soprano quote.

With three losses to the Democrats, Bush had to hit a home run to score at all. The thought that has been growing in my mind all day is, "Mighty Casey has struck out."

Phone bank volunteers didn’t seem able to get to the phones today. Too many people were coming in looking for yard signs and literature. Typical remarks:

“Would anyone here mind if I had a Kerry/Edwards sign in my yard next to the Republican candidates I’m supporting?”

“I need 18 bumper stickers for my cab company.”

“I want the largest sign I can get for my business.”

“My photo was on the front page of the paper as undecided. I was told to watch the debate. I decided. I want a yard sign.”

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

Four years ago, George W. Bush the candidate was supposedly the master debater. Now, the talking heads are still saying, it's a tight race, it's within the margin of error, etc. Before the debates however, they were telling us Kerry had lost. If the debates have damaged "W" as much elsewhere as they have in Michigan, he may end up three weeks from now being compared to Barry Goldwater.

A CNN QuickVote poll shows 87% of respondents believe that Bush relied on electronic aids hidden in his jacket. It's admittedly not a scientific poll, but it does not bode well.

I spent five hours inputting pre-debate data from canvassers. If the Republican canvassers are getting similar results, I have to believe the rumor that the Republican Party plans to stop advertising in Michigan. One person who had indicated they still planned to vote for Bush, answered “Call me…” when asked if he would volunteer to help get Kerry elected. A week ago, the ad campaigns were constant. I have only heard one George Bush since the last debate. The last ad before the Letterman show ended with, “I’m George Bush and I approve this message.” We quit watching Leno months ago because of his politics. I do love non sequitors.

I don't understand all the drama about Dick Cheney's daughter being a lesbian. Why are Dick and Lynne upset? Is this news to them or something? Were they hoping it was a phase she'd grow out of?

If the Cheneys had a shred of shame, credibility or basic decency they would be far more outraged at the anti-gay policies of George Bush than John Kerry's musings on the causes of homosexuality. The Log Cabin Republcans--which did not endorse Bush's reelection chided Kerry, but saved their real criticism for Bush and Karl "Wedge Issue" Rove.

http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/press_101404.html

And here's another example of the extremely selective "outrage" by Dick and Lynne. Apparently, when it's a Republican trashing Mary it's okay with her parents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897569/

What we learned from the three presidential debates are that John Kerry does look like a guy who could be President and George Bush is at his absolute worst standing before a microphone without a teleprompter and cue cards. Bush's performance was staggeringly bad and bordered on incoherent at times as he throughly lived down to his reputation as a lousy debater.

While Kerry is nobody's idea of a dynamic speaker, he appears to be thoughtful, articulate and engaged person; three qualities noticeably lacking in the current resident of the White House.

I anticipate some major ugliness from the GOP in general and Karl Rove in particular. Taking the low road has never bothered Rowe and in an attempt to save Bush from himself there's no limit to the extremes he will go. Somewhere between the NRA planned negative media blitz, Rove's machinations, the Diebold voting machines, the partisan Kerry-bashing plans of the Sinclair Broadcast Group and all the creeps, cranks and crazies that are part of Team Bush 2004, I expect the "Stop Kerry" forces to take this campaign over the last three weeks to the deepest darkest pits of American politics.

Prepare for three weeks of absolute slime. We'll see if division, vitriol and fear-mongering from Dubya and his surrogates wins the day.

I gave the debate a tie. Its the first Ive been able to see in entirety, (it starts at 5pm here.)
I guess I look at things differently at first, looking for what would jive with the different factions of society. For example, I thought Kerry's agreement with raising the minimum wage was true to liberal values but I could hear every small business owner in America groaning at the thought. I was impressed by his honesty on that and also on recinding the tax cuts. It takes great face to stand up and say, we must pay as we go, but it is certainley NOT popular.

Although health care is a huge concern in this country, I dont think Kerry explained his plan adequately enough and Bush was good at making this appear a big social program, that which we fear as a collective.
Kerry came across as a spender on many issues.

Bush when talking about jobs and outsourcing kept talking about Community Colleges offering education for "jobs of the 21st Century" , a completely baloney response for most. I dont think most 40+ year olds who have been outsourced look forward to a great career after a new CC course, in WHAT? Fashion Merchandising or Vet technician? Gimme a break, that was just too weak.

Bush looked stressed I thought, trying to put up the best face he could and get through it, or keep from making faces.

On abortion Bush talked about "group maternity homes", which sent up a red flag for me. 'Social program'? Of the worst kind.

On the S.S. debate, neither candidate chose to entertain the problem of the baby boomers, but Bush's plan to give youth the option to pull their money out now would be a disaster. Kerry was right on that IMO.

Near the end they both must have been tired because they began to stammer, Bush worse.

My intitial and knee jerk response to the Cheney's daughter remark was ' low blow'. It was unnecessary. If Kerry had talked about all gay people deserving rights everyone in the nation would have put together 2+2 No need to bring up the daughter, its not her fault her parents are in politics and using her as a political tool is unnacceptable.

I liked Kerry's use of " the President 'broke faith' with the American People" on Iraq, rather than calling him an outright liar. It shows dignity. Kerry also did not attack conservatives or Republicans, something Bush cannot help but do in his name calling of 'liberal'.

On a more personal note, I get the heeby jeebies when Bush talks of 3 things( not quotes but Ill get them if necessary): 'Freedom is on the March',
' Spreading Freedom and Democracy worldwide, (or in the world'), and ' I believe God wants all people to be free'.
I always have the feeling Im being set up, and I dont like the implications of what is being said ANYWAY! Actually Im suprised they( Rove and admin) have the guts to say it outloud, especially at the end of a debate. Its probably the most honest part of the ideology presented.
I believe we should listen and hear what is being said here. They must enjoy that their main objective is clearly face front to the public, yet it just comes across as another patriotic sound byte and not as threatening as it really is.

As for question 2:
I think Kerry came from behind in the debates. Bush/Cheney were really nothing new. The debates served Kerry.
Now, its interesting that we have a President that the part that supports him asks themselves, please dont let him look/act like an idiot, and the other half is tuning in saying , lets see if this guy can pull this off and not look like a total idiot. Then after one or two debates, the people are saying , well, Bush didnt look like as much of an idiot as he did the first time, so thats good!
Ok folks, thats the President of the USA. I suppose we deserve our politicians when we accept that our president cannot but be an angry, arrogant, illiterate, inarticulate..that everyone expects the worst from and is glad because 'he didnt do as bad as we thought' and 'did good because we expected less'! Its astounding.
How low should our expectations be after this?

No, it was a comma. I just listened to it again. He just made it sound matter of fact. This is how ya do it, people -- not the way he is. He was successfully countering Bush's attack on foreign policy.

Wow, that's hilarious. Keyes' remarks were far nastier, but we never heard a peep out of the Cheneys (maybe Mrs. Cheney's afraid her homo-erotic book would come back out of the shadows). This whole thing has been blown so far out of proportion, it's breathtaking. Is the Bush campaign so desperate they resort to making non-issues issues? Funny, too, how Bush didn't respond at all to the remarks during the debate.

And speaking of out of proportion...Kerry said "countrypeople" as in all the people in the country. From the transcript:


It makes sense in the context of the point he was trying to make - gaining legitimacy in the US and abroad.

What the heck is nighttimer talking about? What word or phrase in the linked article makes you think that Keyes' comments were "okay" with the Cheney's?

It's well-known that Alan Keyes had his political career ended by the Republican mainstream after he made that comment. He is done for in the Bush administration. No help, no endorsement for his Senate campaign, no future appointments to ambassador of anything. He committed political suicide. The Cheney's didn't speak out about it, because they wanted it to go away, and unlike this incident it wasn't on TV to 30 million people. For the most part, only political junkies knew about the Keyes quote.



Countrypeople is pretty sweet. John Kerry out-doing himself with that bit of ineloquence, in the grand tradition of great orators.

Friends, Romans, countrypeople - lend me your tin ears!

And "gain legitimacy with your own country, people" is more eloquent?

If he'd said "countrymen" you would have been quick to pounce on him as being misogynistic and politically incorrect.

Dude, no offense, but if you believe that drugs in Canada are somehow "unsafe" in comparison to American dugs you need to get your head check and invest in some thought cleansing fluid to wash out all the crap ideas you've unfortunately absorbed.

The Canadian Health Care system has always been one of the best in the world and up until about 5 years ago it was the best -- but a lotta politicians EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER up the funding but thats not slowly getting righted, it most affected wait times for procedures.

The drugs, the procedures, they techniques used, etc etc are ALL the same....some of the biggest collaborations are between the US & Canada for drug studies because of geographical proximity. Like I said before (I think I did) Canadians for years, when the dollar values been good, have driven over the border and bought drugs and brought them back home to Canada to save $$$ -- same as you guys want to -- because the drugs are exactly the same!!! I used to do that all the time with my Dad a few times a year and we'd buy easy over the counter drugs like aspiran in bulk cause it was a cost savings.

Sure Canada works with European companies but so does the US.....just cause they work with them doesn't mean the drugs don't pass our gov't safety levels.

Regarding your FDA -- see Vioxx... its a well known fact that the FDA pushes most drugs to the market with limited safety studies done on them because if they had to perform 10 year studies on every drug before allowing it to market nothing would get to market......it would take too long.

No offense, but which of our 2 counties have a true universal health care system? Only Canada does... we go into the hospital and our care, procedures, drugs, rooming costs, etc get paid thru our national healthcare system. Only when you get discharged from hospital do you start paying for your own medications (whatever your own poersonal healthcare/drug plan does not cover). You guys break an arm, get a cast and what? Get a bill for $3000 or something? We flash a card, get the cast and walk out...

Now given that, do you really think we're gonna be the country having the 3rd world drug approval process with unsafe drugs? No....... there's no difference between Canada & the USA in terms of drugs and drug safety.....the approvals run on the same time times and I'd assume virtually the exact same criteria.

I've never heard of 1 drug approved as safe in Canada and unapproved and classified as dangerous in the USA... have you???

I freely admit to being a "political junkie" carlitoswhey, and I was totally unware of Alan Keyes homophobic rant against Mary Cheney. Then again, as you live in Chicago you have a front row seat from the latest rantings and ravings of the soon-to-be-sent-packing-back-to-Maryland-Mr. Keyes. Most of the nation is mercifully spared of his looney tunes crapola.

There's a big difference between Keyes condemning Mary Cheney is a "sinner" and Kerry speculating how she became a lesbian. The fact that Lynne Cheney declined to comment---or defend her daughter--after Keyes made his jaw-droppingly dumb remark indicates to me that there's a double standard at play here. Republican criticism is ignored while Democratic speculation becomes fodder for "outrage." Well, it's an extremely selective outrage and the fact remains that Bush/Cheney are campaigning on a platform of homophobic policies and anti-gay rhetoric. Mary Cheney will find it even more difficult to be a out lesbian should her dear old dad win reelection.

Yeah, it is sweet, trying to be gender-inclusive, as I try to be at times, calling a member of Congress a Congressperson, not a Congressman.

Should resonate well with those who appreciated Bush's statement, "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

But if you don't mind, I think the kernel of Kerry's thought was "I think most Americans in their guts know, that we ought to pass a sort of truth standard. That's how you gain legitimacy with your own countrypeople, and that's how you gain legitimacy in the world." I know it was mentioned before, but it bears repeating.

And legitimacy is in as short supply in this Administration as flu vaccinations are for our people. Try to remember one time in these debates when George W. Bush mentioned or showed any concern about the actual legitimacy of his foreign (or domestic) policies. He has apparently become a law unto himself, to the point where he couldn't even articulate one, much less three mistakes he had made in nearly four years of leadership.

I think that you helped make my point here, as a political junkie you didn't know about the Keyes remark. So why should Lynne Cheney call a press conference and increase her daughter's embarassment to the wider community, when only IL knew about it. I'm sure that Mr. [COLOR=blue]edited to delete offensive content[COLOR=blue] himself made a call to Ambassador Keyes and used a few choice words, but they didn't want to respond in public.

Unlike this situation, where 30 million people watched it live on TV.

But now we really are showing ourselves to be political junkies, if we can argue about this nerdy stuff.



I'm not the PC police by far, so nope. It's sad that our candidates for president are forced to invent language to not offend someone. Countrymen is the word, and it's fine by me.


Wow. You are absolutely right, at least in my case. It must just be the way I hear language, but I actually used the same word "sweet" to describe Bush saying that in my post right here. Interesting.

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?

Sometimes it's the small indicators...

In High School, my history teacher spoke of the "Popcorn Poll." Apparently there was a year in which a theater chain offered moviegoers a choice of buying their popcorn in bags with Donkeys or with Elephants. The results were a very accurate predictor of the Presidential Election this year.

I took my daughter to a restaurant after school today because we had to pick her cello up from the repair shop across the street. As we were paying the bill, she noticed a rack full of stuffed, plush, red, white, and blue elephants. She asked where the donkeys were. "They sold out a couple months ago. No one wants the elephants." Okay, maybe the NRA faction has been using the donkeys for target practice, but for today, I felt as warm and fuzzy as the toys...

I just downloaded the debate from the iTMS and listened to it again and you are right. He does say "countrypeople". It wasn't as eloquent as it could be, but it is nothing compared to the Bushisms we've come to know and love like "strategery" and "misunderestimated". "Countrypeople" is just an attempt to be PC and that's fine. Perhaps it would've been better it he'd said something like, "That's how you gain legitimacy with people in your own country and that's how you gain legitimacy in the world."

On this point, it is interesting listening to the candidates hear the words coming out of there mouth and change the structure of a sentence to correct the thought in an attempt to keep it cohesive. Kerry seems to be much better on his feet in this regard than Bush.

Quote from the debate:



Now the original answer from Cheney in 2000:



Now a recap of my post:

Redliner1989 Wrote:



You say that I “miss the big picture” CJ, and I must disagree, you miss the "big picture", because you neglect the value of the history between the statements (or lack thereof)

Dick Cheney’s statement was made in late 2000, when, as Cheney implies, the State Legislatures and the votes of the people were deciding the issue. Lets be clear, Cheney was a legislator. Since 2000 what changed? Not the votes of the people and not legislation, it was Court intervention. Cheney could, without the hint of “hypocricy”, cite Court intervention as a reason for his support of both his 2000 statement, and the administration.

Also, look at the complete text of what Cheney said. “And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into…”

Nothing that Bush or Cheney said would preclude Homosexual relationships. It’s a bit like saying that Paraplegics should be allowed to perform brain surgery, or else the are not free.

Interesting views here. From the Kerry/ABB crowd we hear that Kerry and Edwards "swept" the debates and I'm wondering if that isn't just wishful thinking. The Bush supporters here are sometimes referred to as "drinking the kool-aid". One must wonder what the other side has been drinking, or perhaps smoking...

In any case, I thought Kerry clearly won the first debate, but I think Bush won the next two, especially this last one. I base that on my perception that Bush was better able to connect with people than Kerry. I think his straightforward way of 'splaining' things works better than Kerry's "nuance" where after every debate we have Kerry people having to explain that what Kerry meant really wasn't what he said. At least the American people know where Bush stands and I'm not really sure they know where Kerry does. I'm not even sure Kerry himself knows.

1. Who won the third and final presidential debate, and why?

I thought Bush did because he addressed the issues better than Kerry did. Bush has a record and he defended it. Kerry's record is indefensible, so Kerry did what he always does and tried to take both sides of the issues. What he ended up doing I think was confuse a lot of people.

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to advance their campaign?



I'm not sure on this one, but the polls have seemed to be trending in favor of Bush for the most part. Kind of hard to believe that Kerry/Edwards would have "won" all four debates based on that.

If were doing it based on poll, just about every after debate poll show a Kerry victory for all three debates. This is with the exception of the ABC poll after the second debate, which showed bush winning by a margin equal to the difference between the the republicans and democrats (he "won because more republicans were watching).

The new polls I posted at the beginning of this thred show a Kerry victory for the third debate. There was at best a tie in the second debate, and a clear Kerry win in the first debate.

That may very well be true, BH, as far as each debate is concerned, but the question concerned which candidate has done more to advance their campaign. According to Real Clear Politics, right now it looks like Bush is pulling ahead slightly. Whether or not that's due to the debates is debatable..... But, it does seem to me to be somewhat strange that Bush would have lost all the debates as some here have claimed and still managed to forge ahead in the polls.

Why do the debates here get so necessarily over-complicated?

Bush can barely talk, he looks like a monkey and these only reason that he stands a chance in the election is because 27% of the electorate are born again christians. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=572304)

His words are almost non-sensical, even if they make grammatical sense as they rarely do. He just comes out with these odd, flawed phrases and pathetic pieces of rhetoric, like "the march of freedom", or the "work of god", and loads of idiots in the crowd starting waching some flag like zealots. Bush only has appeal in so far as people are blindly patriotic, living in constructed fear, and obsessed by religion. It would be impossible for Bush to win if winning the elections required more than big business, or less cynically, or if they required any skills of reason or argument and serious political aims. He is a disgrace to America in just about everyway possible. The whole world thinks he is a complete buffoon, why don't Americans?

Aquilla,

Saying that Bush managed “to forge ahead" is a stretch. His biggest lead is the Newsweek poll which is based on “likely” voters. How do we determine who is a likely voter? I also find it interesting that Newsweek has women supporting Bush while men support Kerry. This is a complete opposite to what we’ve seen in past polls. Was this a misprint, an error or a change in trends?

Although Newsweek’s headline said the race was too close to call and among all voters the margin was Bush 48% Bush/46% Kerry, RPC chose to give Bush the largest Newsweek advantage possible.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6260444/site/newsweek/

Except for Newsweek’s “likely voters’ the race is a tie. According to people like Howard Fineman of Newsweek and Craig Crawford of the Congressional Quarterly it’s going to come down to which side gets out it’s vote.

BTW: When I looked this morning the RPC average had Bush ahead 2.8, this afternoon its 3.4%. Margin of error is important in polling. RPC has dropped Rasmussen today. Why?

I’ve heard people talk about the “lesser of two evils,” but if voters renew Bush’s contract, it will be like electing the lowest common denominator. Although the analogy isn’t exact, it would be like giving Bush yet another “social promotion.”

Edited for clarification. The RPC link seems to change by the minute.

Edited again.

Without Nader, it's 1.7% for Bush. I stand on my comments about the Newsweek poll.

This average omits Zogby and ABC/Washington Post Polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry_hth.html

With Nader included, Bush leads by 3.4%. Rasmussen, IRC, CBS and CNN/USA Today/Gallup are not included in this average.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

This post is addressing one of the answers Bush gave. He said that they were looking to Canada to provide flu vaccine since the one British pharmaceutical manufacturer was shut down (the flu vaccine was found to be contaminated).

Bush's position on Canadian flu shots vs. Rx. drugs called 'ironic'


This is just one discrepancy that popped out during Bush's portion in the debate. There are others. Not only was the President not in control of the debate in terms of stage presence or eloquence; he contradicted himself and he did not have a good command of the facts.

How could this be seen as a Bush victory? Because he didn't fall apart?

I find little irony at all in either the situation or the statements made.

What did you want the Government to do? Not look for alternative sources for a flu vacine? Then what? If it is found later that there was a safe source that the administration could have found, would you have cheered the administration for not seeking it out?

What Bush said to the American people, in regards to the flu vacine shortage was extremely appropriate.

What I find ironic is that some who critique the Presidents performance would make statements like this:



ummmm, noff said, I guess

How specifically was what Bush said appropriate?

In my opinion, Schieffer caught Bush flatfooted with this question. The president in my opinion stumbled.

I agree with you on one point, though. Saying that Bush looks like a monkey is unproductive. On the other hand, religious conservatives--though not all of them will vote for Bush--make up a big chunk of his base.

Well, since apparently we want to get personal and nasty towards the candidates, and that's ok, let's pull out a quote from one of Kerry's answers in the debate.....



Senator, that's not three words, that's one word repeated three times.

Kind of like a real estate agent saying "location, location, location". Perhaps Mr. Kerry views running for President as a task similar to picking out which mansion to buy next with his wife's late husband's money. Or maybe I'm just "taking him out of context" because after all, Kerry doesn't have to actually say what he means because he speaks this new-fangled language called "nuance". And since I happen to believe in God, I must be too stupid to understand it....

Oh well, he did say one word was three words. It's too bad his mother didn't give him that same advice back in 1971 when he sat before the US Senate and lied about the soldiers fighting and dying in Vietnam. Maybe he wouldn't have done that and hurt the people he did. I guess the spin on that one will be "better late than never".

THE POLL TRACKER, showing trends reflected in the CNN/ USA TODAY/ GALLUP: LIKELY VOTERS polling shows that George W. Bush held a commanding 14% lead (54% -40%) in mid-September, two weeks before the election. (See: Who "lost" Kerry the election?) A few days before the first debate, his lead had slipped to a mere 8%. At 52% - 44%, he still had a clear expectation of victory. For the past two weeks, Kerry has held steady at 49%, while Bush has slipped to 48%.

Four years ago, we heard your candidate speak of his budget plans as “fuzzy math," and we wondered what he meant. Using “Liberal Math,” the President’s lead appears to have dropped by 15%; yet he has his followers convinced that the polls seem to be trending in his favor as he tours the country on a “victory tour.” (Does he still expect to reach the lone undecided Republican voter?) Well, I know this is only a single set of Polls that I happen to be looking at. Perhaps I should look through a pair of Republican tinted glasses at the polls of voters who will be able to afford Gasoline on November 2, or the “What do you think of the Emperors new clothes?” poll. Nah... I'll keep my Goldwater glasses on, and hope that President Bush maintains the steady trending in the polls that you and he are currently so pleased with. I would like to see W complain that he would have won the election if the Democrats had only kept Nader off the ballot.

Aquilla, dont you think you are splitting hairs a bit on 'the three words as one' thing? Is that the best you can do?
Yes he could have said 'the' words, but really!

Also, Kerry lied to the Senate about what was going on in Vietnam? Lied? Why is this not a huge scandal? Its certainely bigger than Swift boats. Why hasnt this Admin used these lies against him, vast and easy fodder that it would be?
Or was it just that an unspoken rule of the military is not to talk to anyone on the outside about whats really going on, and that Kerry did do.
You see I know lots of Vietnam Vets, and the stories they tell to anyone who will listen certainely back up Kerry's statements, if not worse.
They have no problem telling everyone they know what they did, they just have a problem with Kerry telling the Senate.

You see no irony at all when Bush says that he hasn't had the purchase of drugs from Canada approved during the last 3-3/4 years of his term because of safety concerns, and yet he wants to get flu vaccines from Canada to protect the American people from the flu? He doesn't trust the medicine until it's an emergency situation and now he trusts it?

Well, the Canadians find it ironic, and so do I and many other Americans.

Has it occurred to those of you who see no irony in this that American citizens who need to afford medicine and still pay the rent and for groceries have emergencies every day in this country because the drugs are too costly for them?!

The upshot of it is that George W. Bush did not keep his promise about this, and he was indeed caught flat-footed when Bob Shieffer asked him the question. The president makes generalizations about the great things he has done about domestic issues, but the fact remains that this administration's record is abysmal.

His debate performance, as well as his record, are disappointing.

Is that what this has come to? The best you have left in your arsenal is making fun of a rhetorical device? Sadly, you even gave an example to support it. Its called emphasis.


Yeah, I know its tough when a candidate for president has some measurable mastery of the English language and doesn't view the world in black and white terms. I can hardly find fault in an individual who isn't capable of spelling his view of the world out in 30 second sound bytes. But I do find sympathy for him when his opponent takes a one line quote out of an eleven page article and attacks him with it.


Amazing how something can look once you remove context.

Doc

edit: cleaned up formatting

PE, look at your own statement. You take something that is a policy matter and apply those rules to "an emergency situation".

Lets apply, what seems to be your "irony" to another situation. It is the policy of this administration not to shoot down Commercial Airliners, then a Commercial Airliner is known to be hijacked, and it's destination is known to be the SuperBowl, and the Administration decides it is in the Countries best interest to shoot down the Airliner, would you find "irony" in this?

After all, the policy was NOT reflected in the action.

Additionally, I saw nothing in the Presidents statement where he said that the vaccine would NOT be tested to insure it meet federal standards, or did I miss something.

Bush indeed had 3-3/4 years of his term to approve a different policy, and Clinton 8. So was Clinton also pandering to "Big Drug"?

More over, John Kerry who tells us he was "a leader" in the Senate, was a Senator during both administrations, yet was NOT able to do what he says needs to now be done. More hindsight leadership?

I again ask:

I realize that Republicans are angered that Clinton usurped the throne from "George the Elder" in 1992 and were further "outraged" by his naughtiness.

Hello, it's Kerry who is now running for president, not Clinton. This is getting really old. Get over it!

The president's record in office stands as is. You cannot keep using Clinton to justify Bush's REAL TIME dismal failures.

2. Given the 4 debates, the 1st Presidential debate, Vice Presidential debate, 2nd Presidential debate and this one, which team of candidates did more to
advance their campaign?

In looking at the post debate polls (Oct 13-16) I would say to the Kerry Camp. "give up." And to the Bush Camp. "stay the course."

Poll; Date; % Bush/Cheney; % Kerry/Edwards; % Nader/Camejo; % Spread

RCP Average; 10/13 - 10/16; 49.0%; 45.2%; 1.5%; Bush +3.8 CNN/USAT/Gallup (788 LV); 10/14 - 10/16; 52%; 44%; 1%; Bush +8
Zogby (1211 LV); 10/14 - 10/16; 46%; 44%; 1%; Bush +2
TIPP (786 LV); 10/13 - 10/16; 48%; 45%; 2%; Bush +3
Time (865 LV w/leaners); 10/14 - 10/15; 48%; 47%; 3%; Bush +1
Newsweek (LV); 10/14 - 10/15; 50%; 44%; 1%; Bush +6
ABC/Wash Post (1203 LV); 10/13 - 10/15; 50%; 47%; 1%; Bush +3

The average shows a spread of +3.8, however lets drop top and bottom +3.5.

What we see here is that the debates meant nothing in terms of 'winner' and 'loser,' but meant in terms of agree or disagree. The debates have shown one thing. Not winners, losers, lairs, better debaters, worst speakers, but a clear dividing line between Bush and Kerry.

It is with this dividing line that people are now beginning to stand firm in their votes. And despite the best effort pushed by Kerry, America seems opposed to his views. This may all change in weeks to come. But I am willing to take a pool on the fact that Bush wins.

And in this pool, I will take the fact that Kerry will win the popular vote in most swing states, but not the electoral vote causing a rise to action on behalf of the Kerry team to challenge the voting procedures in most swing states. This challenge will send the stock market into a stalemate, the war on hold, and people to grow unwary as the head into the Christmas Season. I will bet that in challenged state will experience a downfall in Christmas sells do to a worried never ending debate of an official president.

And what will come? Bush will win the election, as they say "illegitimately" and then "stay the course." This is why I say to the Kerry Camp. "give up." Because it will just make the Christmas Season just suck for most Americans.

I'm so glad you said that, and I agree. Bringing Clinton into the argument is
nothing but a desperate attempt to take the spotlight off of Bush.

Bush's ties to pharmaceutical companies are irrefutable. He does not have the
best interests of the average American at heart:

Eli Lilly, manufacturer of olanzapine, has multiple ties to the Bush
administration. George Bush Sr was a member of Lilly's board of directors and
Bush Jr appointed Lilly's chief executive officer, Sidney Taurel, to a seat on the
Homeland Security Council. Lilly made $1.6m in political contributions in 2000,
82% of which went to Bush and the Republican Party.

As for GWB's progress where the debates are concerned: He made no
attempt to address the concerns of the folks who are opposed to what he has
done, thus far, as our president. He didn't need to make progress with the
hillbillies who are blindly standing behind him. He needed to reach out to
Americans who have real concerns about where our country is headed, and he
made no effort to address, or even acknowledge, his mistakes as our leader.
That shows an inability to take responsibility for his actions- not a good
trait to have in a president.

Wouldn't opposed people not care for an apology? Is there actually a single Bush-opposed person with real concerns who would change their view if Bush apologized and said, "everything I have done is wrong, I made a mistake, and I am sorry?"

I am hard pressed to believe that there is a single person out there waiting for Bush to address their real concerns before they vote for him. And if that person does exist then what concerns has Bush not address in one form or another? Besides if said person disagree with what Bush has done, what could he say to make their concerns go away?

Odd how you say Bush is not taking responsibility for his actions as president. What should Bush take responsibility for that he has done as President? Bush has said that he would do it all again. That seems to be taking responsiblity to me. He believes in what he did and believes it was right.

What I understand by this statement is that Bush needs to admit he did make a mistake with what you think is wrong. But I don't think he is wrong. So to me, he hasn't made a mistake. So there is nothing Bush needs to admit to.

This is what so great about elections. If you feel Bush is not living up to his end of the deal as President, well you can vote him out: in essences, fire him. If I feel Bush is living up to his end of the deal as President, I can vote to "stay the course."

But don't go around pointing righteous fingers claiming a mistake that Bush needs to admit mistakes for when 50+% of people feel Bush has not made any 'grave' mistakes that causes them "concerns about where this country is headed."



I think there are more then just hillbillies standing behind Bush. What about the corporations, country singers, christian coalitions, anti-abortionist, anti-homosexuality-ites, pro war, pro military control of the world, anti-germany, anti-french people who want to "stay the course?"

[quote=doomed_planet]

For those of us who might be on the fence, with concerns about his actions. He
was talking in his "I'm a down-home hillbilly"accent, as if the whole viewing
audience are semi-retards . That jargon won't appeal to the majority.

I'm surprised it appeals to the highly intelligent Republicans who continue to stand
behind him. I can only surmise that they are looking at GWB as the lesser of two
evils, because he sure as heck isn't the fiscal conservative that most Republicans
expect in their leader, nor is he managing to keep his nose out of our personal
decisions, with proposed ammendments to the Constitution (for example). He's
an atypical Republican.



Your man is a shining example of everything you hope to find in a president? He
has made zero mistakes from your calculations? That is his stance, as president.
Has he successfully passed that frame of mind on to you?



Interesting choice of words, Josh - "grave mistakes."



Indeed. So, perhaps he should have addressed his followers in a more befitting
manner. Walking around on the stage (during the debates) like he's about to lasso
a bull, and using a Texan accent does not capture the amazing essence some
people vehemently proclaim he posesses as our president. If the job's important
to him, he should show it by carrying on an intelligent debate, for Christ's
sake.

I am failing to see what he has done, thus far, that causes you, Joshua, to give
him your support. Perhaps you can enlighten me by relating what he has done for you, on a personal level.

Even us "hillbillies" (we consider ourselves rednecks cause, if you visit Nebraska sometime, we ain't got none of them there fancy hills, alls a we gots is pickups and an old blue tic hound named betsy) can follow a discussion without going off track DP.

It is obvious that SENATOR Kerry wants the American public to believe that GW Bush is pandering to "Big Drug", because there is yet a bill passed that allows importation from Canada.

If that is true, then there are also those that MUST also pander, or have pandered (whatever time period you feel the most comfortable with), to "Big Drug".

Therefore, if it is currently true that Bush is pandering, after 3 1/2 year of the problem, then it must also be TRUE that Clinton also must have pandered.

Obviously (sarcasm applied here), there could be no reason that this bill has not passed the Senate, the House and been signed into law except that all involved with "Big Drug". I wonder how JFK would feel being lumped into this

BUT WAIT THERES MORE! We have one constant throughout this entire time period. ONE CONSTANT through both Bush Administrations AND the Clinton Administration. THATS RIGHT, someone who wants you to believe that he is an effective leader throughout the past 20 years. And who IS this LEADER who after 20 years as a LEADER, through 3 different administrations could not get an importation bill passed and signed. Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. "I lead by hindsight" himself, Senator John Kerry!

In fact, He was such a strong leader in the Senate that he got nothing done in 20 years. Thats 12 years longer then Clinton took to get nothing done, 16 years longer then Bush Senior, and 16.5 years longer then it took "W" to get nothing done. Heck DP, he outlasted them all COMBINED, and didn't get it done. BRAVO John Kerry, pat yourself on the back!

Ya gotta love it.

I think I will vote for John Kerry, but only after I vote against him.

To bad there ain't no emoticon wearing a cowboy hat and chewing on a piece of straw. Us "hillbillies" would sure nough use it.

Ya gotta love it!

Your argument rings true for the whole Bush campaign. When you don't have a record of accomplishment, manufacture an issue. When you can't run on your record, claim that Clinton was as bad or worse. When people doubt the argument, keep repeating it until they believe it.

The last time I checked I had a Kerry yard sign and Kerry bumper stickers, not Clinton memorabilia.

Why do you insist on whipping a dead horse? Giddyup there Bill. Wait a minute, Bill ain't here.

BoF wrote



No accomplishments? The defeat of Iraq in a matter of days, with far FEWER American casualties then were projected for simply taking Baghdad. Home Ownership at an all time record level. Those are not accomplishments?

Bringing this country back after the devistation of 9/11 and no further attacks since?

25 million more people living in freedom, then before. Oh, and Saddam has kinda quit his mass killings, and can no longer fill mass graves with the bodies of innocent men and women.

BoF, ask those thousands of dead women and children if Bush accomplished anything? opps, my bad, they died under a different administration. Sorry.

Oh, and you obviously forgot the part of my post where I quit correctly pointed out that Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. NONE of them were able to pass the referenced bill. Does that make one any worse then the other? Answer BoF, or are you a bit afraid too? Again, the only constant during all three administration. as it applies to this discussion is, YOU GUESSED IT, the "Leadership" (or apparently the lack there of), of Senator John Kerry.

He can (and does) run, but he can't hide.

Too, extremely funny how neither he, nor his supporters, can answer the questions earlier posted.

Also, I attributed your quotes to Doomed_Planet (must have been those tainted Canadian meds I took). For this I am sorry DP/

[quote=doomed_planet]For those of us who might be on the fence, with concerns about his actions. He was talking in his "I'm a down-home hillbilly"accent, as if the whole viewing audience are semi-retards. That jargon won't appeal to the majority.[/quote]

If people are on the fence, are unsatisfied with his answers, then they know how to vote. Why is this hard? Isn't Kerry good enough to vote for?

The real problem with people on the fences is not the fact that Bush hasn't explained himself to them, but Kerry hasn't sold them. I do not understand how anyone could still be undecided. Both Kerry and Bush have presented their cases, opened their web site, explained the cons of their opponent, and have tried to explain what they will do as President. It is time to make a decision in the last two weeks before the election.

But not to vote is a vote to. It is a vote saying to the political community, "hey, give me something to vote for."

[QUOTE=doomed_planet]I'm surprised it appeals to the highly intelligent Republicans who continue to stand behind him. I can only surmise that they are looking at GWB as the lesser of two evils, because he sure as heck isn't the fiscal conservative that most Republicans expect in their leader, nor is he managing to keep his nose out of our personal decisions, with proposed ammendments to the Constitution (for example). He's an atypical Republican.[/QUOTE]

The lesser of two evils cannot be applied to the Republican party this election. WHY? Because the Republican bases is really rallying around this candidate.

[quote=doomed_planet]Your man is a shining example of everything you hope to find in a president? He has made zero mistakes from your calculations? That is his stance, as president. Has he successfully passed that frame of mind on to you?[QUOTE]

My views of both candiates mean nothing. I am not demanding Kerry or Bush apologizes for what actions I feel were inappropiate. I base my decisions on their records and if I don't agree then that is a con, if I agree that was a pro, in th end i weigh everything and vote. But that is me. I don't have a 'tie' in my logic, but others may.

Though I disagree with actions people make, I don't demand them to apologize for their actions. Why apologize if you think you've done nothing wrong? If you have done something wrong, and you don't apologize then you have guilt. If you have done something worng, and you don't apologize and you don't have guilt then that is your problem. And if I am reading you correctly, this is Bush. But to me, this isn't Bush. Either you are ultra sensative to the subjects or i am not reading Bush right.

But who cares? You vote for who you vote for.

[quote=doomed_planet]I am failing to see what he has done, thus far, that causes you, Joshua, to give him your support. Perhaps you can enlighten me by relating what he has done for you, on a personal level. [/quote]

Oh there is too much to list. I disagree with Bush and agree with Bush on different subjects. But how Bush relates to me is different then you. and will take some time to explain. PM if you are really interested.

But on a personal level Bush has given something to everyone. A $500 rebate check in a tax return, and this, ask everyone who you meet "how did you spend it?" ME. I went to Vegas for cheap, it was fun. 5 days for five hundred dollars.

It is precisely this attitude that makes Bush such a turn-off. You are either with
him (blindly giving allegiance and asking no questions), or you are against him.
And, if you are against him, you are discarded.




Beautiful way of spinning it onto Kerry's shoulders.



I know some people who are having a difficult time. They don't want Kerry,
but Bush is looking like a huge liability.




Who is demanding that?




WHO is demanding an apology?

I've said all I will on this thread. Good luck with your voting, Edited to remove name-calling.

Whether we are talking specifically about the flu shot shortage or the high price of prescription drugs in general, we have to lay current blame on the current administration. Bush doesn't even have to refuse to accept responsibility when his supporters make excuses for him. Again, blaming Clinton is a convenient smoke screen. Kerry is one of 100 voices in the Senate and hence irrelevant to what the administration has accomplished. Bush has had a Republican controlled Congress most of his four years. It is up to him to display a little leadership in pushing a legislative agenda. Perhaps he should read a biography of Lyndon Johnson, if he needs instruction on being a legislative leader.

Again Clinton and for that matter Bush the Elder, are not relevant to the problem as it now sits.

Your question was more of a statement. Don't flatter yourself too much that people are afraid to answer you.



Are you saying that despite all your highly moralistic rhetoric on this and other threads lately, that at least a wee part of your support of Bush lies in the hedonistic pleasure derived from a spare $500.00?

I hope Bush enjoys eating "crow," because that's what it looks like in this situation.

Look, I certainly do NOT condemn Bush or his administration for asking for additional flu vaccine from Canadian manufacturers! It only makes sense. But then, I figured there was nothing wrong with Canadian medicine in the first place--Bush apparently did. And he dragged his, er, feet seeing to the safety of the drugs so reimportation could be approved. Tough luck for the seniors who needed these medicines to be affordable last week or last year.

I suppose those seniors had to depend on "faith-based initiatives" to make up the difference on the cost of the medicines (if there was enough funds available), or maybe their kids had to chip in on it, if they could. Of course, with the jobs deficit and the fact that the jobs that are now available earn measurably less these days, the kids might have had trouble helping Mom and Dad with their medical bills.

This administration has done a poor job domestically. The high cost of prescriptions and that fact that 5 million more people are not covered by health insurance are but a couple of indications of Bush & Co. neglecting the domestic front.

And the thing is, with a Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives, what excuse does the President have for not keeping his GOP-sanctioned promises?


With all due respect, this example is lame.