War starts with a W
September 2, 2004 8:08 PM   Subscribe

The full text of George W Bush's acceptance speech. I feel less safe now than I was before, but as of this week it looks like he's going to win.
posted by mathowie (269 comments total)
 
*retch*
posted by Space Coyote at 8:12 PM on September 2, 2004


In your face Metafilter!
posted by Stan Chin at 8:14 PM on September 2, 2004


Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom.

Aliens call us to freedom!! Do not question the leader!! A new and better life awaits you on our distant home planet, Blisstonia!!
posted by bradlands at 8:15 PM on September 2, 2004


You sure about that?
posted by PrinceValium at 8:15 PM on September 2, 2004


How about all those people who got dragged out?
posted by ColdChef at 8:16 PM on September 2, 2004


That dude is awesome.
posted by techgnollogic at 8:17 PM on September 2, 2004


We are on the path to the future and we are not turning back.

Hrm. So, you're saying that time-machine initiative was a boondoggle?
posted by stonerose at 8:19 PM on September 2, 2004


"So," I think to myself, "How long into his speech before he brings up 9/11?"

When I said those words four years ago, none of us could have envisioned what these years would bring. In the heart of this great city, we saw tragedy arrive on a quiet morning.

Oooh, second sentence. Amazing restraint.
posted by ColdChef at 8:20 PM on September 2, 2004


The electoral vote site tipped it in favor of Bush for the first time this week.
posted by mathowie at 8:23 PM on September 2, 2004


To be fair, there are some things my opponent is for he’s proposed more than two trillion dollars in new federal spending so far, and that’s a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts. To pay for that spending, he is running on a platform of increasing taxes and that’s the kind of promise a politician usually keeps.

Of course, if you go by his speech, Bush will give us all a new house, access to community college, health care, social security, homeland security, and he'll stay in Iraq forever, if necessary. And apparently, all for free.
posted by ColdChef at 8:23 PM on September 2, 2004


Yes, he will win, but you will be safe. Happy? That's between you and, perhaps your therapist.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:26 PM on September 2, 2004


There's still two months before the erection: two prez debates, one veep debate, and more than enough time for a great many screwups from the Offal Office. I'm sorry, but I'm not into being defeated because paid pollsters and media turf battles tell me to do so.

Vodka tonic, please?
posted by moonbird at 8:27 PM on September 2, 2004


Thank God I live in New York, an island off the coast of America.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:28 PM on September 2, 2004


Hehe... indeed, every new program announced by Bush is somehow going to be paid by good intentions. When Kerry announces the same it must all come from higher taxes. I can't believe that people are so simple-minded that they'll fall for this con, but only time will tell if that's in the cards.
posted by clevershark at 8:28 PM on September 2, 2004


My favorite part of the speech was when he talked about the Iraq kid who spelled out "god bless america" with his stump.
posted by Peter H at 8:29 PM on September 2, 2004


I watched his speech, I also watched the protesters during his part about beefing up security, I also saw an awful lot of delagates sitting with their arms crossed and a scowl on their faces.

I loved the part where he said, without even a trace of irony, that Kerry is going to spend three quarters of a trillion dollars. Hello? Mr. Largest-Deficit-in-the-History-of-the-World? Time for your reality check.
posted by fenriq at 8:30 PM on September 2, 2004


but as of this week it looks like he's going to win.

The more we say this, the more likely it becomes. I don't know why we insist on being self-defeating.

Bush is polling even with Kerry within the margin of error--and he's an incumbent. I lack your lack of faith.
posted by frykitty at 8:30 PM on September 2, 2004


Caught the end of it on C-Span (and the last few paragraphs dragged on for long enough!). Occasionally the camera cut to shots of what looked like people leaving during the speech, or were they being escorted out? Wha' happen? I think the Dems are still in with a chance as many things can and will go wrong before the election, it just depends on which party those things favour.
posted by Onanist at 8:31 PM on September 2, 2004


"If polls meant anything I'd still be in the race" — Howard Dean, some time this week on CNN

Remember, just vote.
posted by Peter H at 8:32 PM on September 2, 2004


The electoral vote site tipped it in favor of Bush for the first time this week.

So what? Kerry got a bounce after the DNC, Bush gets his now. Everyone knew this was going to be close, and it will be right up until the end.
posted by psmealey at 8:33 PM on September 2, 2004


The electoral-vote.com linear regressions map, although it needs more data to make a reasonable prediction, still projects a Kerry win.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:34 PM on September 2, 2004


George W Bush: Focusing on the future, because the past is too fucking embarrassing.
posted by ColdChef at 8:35 PM on September 2, 2004




George W. Bush: Focusing on the future because alcohol abuse and cocaine impair your memory.
posted by Peter H at 8:36 PM on September 2, 2004


Can we just get the politicians, all of them, to leave the blessings of the invisible man in the sky out of their political speech? Personal beliefs aside, I can't see how such requests help America given the relative infrequency with which they're answered positively.
posted by billsaysthis at 8:39 PM on September 2, 2004


Is there some kind of digital cable package I can get to watch you girlie-men panic from multiple camera angles?
posted by techgnollogic at 8:39 PM on September 2, 2004


Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.

So, it's the judges that are messing things up? I thought it was all those queers asking for equal rights. I'm an idiot.
posted by ColdChef at 8:39 PM on September 2, 2004


Can we just get the politicians, all of them, to leave the blessings of the invisible man in the sky out of their political speech?

Also consider he's especially busy during football season, handling field goals and immaculate receptions and such.
posted by Stan Chin at 8:41 PM on September 2, 2004


> My favorite part of the speech was when he talked about the Iraq kid who spelled out "god bless america" with his stump.

Don't forget the "X" burned into his forehead.

"The people we have freed won’t forget either. Not long ago, seven Iraqi men came to see me in the Oval Office. They had “X”s branded into their foreheads, and their right hands had been cut off, by Saddam Hussein’s secret police, the sadistic punishment for imaginary crimes."

What the fuck movie is that from???
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 8:42 PM on September 2, 2004


girlie-men

Just out of curiosity, when you use that stupid phrase, do you feel more contempt for homosexuals or women?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:43 PM on September 2, 2004


Don't forget the "X" burned into his forehead

Ha, yeah, you'd think with the money Bush has to buy and rig things, he'd have those guys spelling "W" correctly.
posted by Peter H at 8:44 PM on September 2, 2004


I thought Elvis used the "in the round" stage more effectively. Why the podium if you're in the round? I was expecting an Oprah or Bono style performance.
posted by Frank Grimes at 8:45 PM on September 2, 2004


If you say the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood, I’m afraid you are not the candidate of conservative values.

And now, a few more words from the Governor of California...

(Remember when Kerry said all those times that the heart and soul of America is found in Hollywood? He just kept saying it and saying it. Seems like all he was saying for a few weeks there. I bet he regrets it now.)
posted by ColdChef at 8:45 PM on September 2, 2004


Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.

But I'm cool with 50% divorce rates and quickie Vegas weddings.
posted by jalexei at 8:45 PM on September 2, 2004


ColdChef, thanks for calling that part out. I mean, his paragraph taken as a whole doesn't even make logical sense. If stability and dignity are what you want and marriage gives that, then wouldn't MORE marriage be even better? There's nothing inherent in hetero marriage that differentiates it in that regard from a prospective homosexual variation. Screw him again!
posted by billsaysthis at 8:46 PM on September 2, 2004


This election will also determine how America responds to the continuing danger of terrorism and you know where I stand.

Fucking Pro-terrorism Kerry. I hate him so.
posted by ColdChef at 8:48 PM on September 2, 2004


I have learned first-hand that ordering Americans into battle is the hardest decision, even when it is right.

But when it's wrong? Not that hard.
posted by psmealey at 8:48 PM on September 2, 2004


You know, if Dubya doesn't get a 15 point bump tomorrow then he's failed miserably.
posted by bshort at 8:48 PM on September 2, 2004




Coldchef wins with "George W Bush: Focusing on the future, because the past is too fucking embarrassing." I will note you as the author of it as I repost it on my site.

And techgnoll? Is that the best you can do? Aren't you funded by the Department of Bush's Character Defense?

You see panic? I see people laughing, turn the sound up. I laughed at most of Bush's tired rehash. He promised it four years ago, why would he need four more years?

And why no mention of Osama bin Laden?
posted by fenriq at 8:49 PM on September 2, 2004


The whole week was nothing more than a finely tuned smear campaign against John Kerry. Kerry had better start firing back instead of whining about how unfair it is or he will go down in flames like Dukakis.
posted by caddis at 8:50 PM on September 2, 2004


I accidentally switched to the wrong channel, heard a single phrase which just happened to be a lie ("we are working to advance liberty in the broader Middle East"), and poured myself another schnapps.
posted by muckster at 8:50 PM on September 2, 2004


We knew Saddam Hussein’s record of aggression and support for terror. We knew his long history of pursuing, even using, weapons of mass destruction. And we know that September 11th requires our country to think differently.

That's going to make for one shitty Mac ad.
posted by ColdChef at 8:51 PM on September 2, 2004


Yes, he will win, but you will be safe.

I've been less save while he's been in charge. The 3 youths with the gun who said "On the ground bitch" was while George was in charge.

Happy?

Again, while George is large and in charge, the IRS said I mis-calculated what I owed, and I owed an addl. 310 dollars. When I went to the IRS office in the Fed. Building, I could not pay my IRS bill with American Script. "This note is legal tender for all debts public and private" my shiny metal ass.

So guns pulled on me and the IRS not taking cash - Oh, how the nation has went downhill!
posted by rough ashlar at 8:51 PM on September 2, 2004


This thread is averaging about a comment-per-minute for the first 40 minutes. Any bets on how long it'll keep this up?
posted by Shane at 8:52 PM on September 2, 2004


Of course, if the judges in Massachusetts had found that the Constitution banned gay marriage (which I imagine would be hard, given it doesn't address marriage at all that I know of), wouldn't they in fact be legislating a gay marriage ban? Judical Activism = Decision I Don't Agree With.
posted by jalexei at 8:52 PM on September 2, 2004


Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but I figure something like 48% of us will vote for one guy, and 48% will vote for the other and the rest -- 4% -- are the undecided.

How about those of us who have already chosen -- and you know we're all firm -- get to vote now, then those who haven't decided have to go off somewhere on a small island with the candidates,and their spokes-crazies, and their advertisements and leave the rest of us the heck alone?

Let us know what ya'll decide.

/modest proposal
posted by mmahaffie at 8:54 PM on September 2, 2004


btw, that electoral college predictor had Kerry at 242, Bush at 280 yesterday.
posted by bshort at 8:56 PM on September 2, 2004


modest proposal

HOW BRILLIANTLY APT TO MENTION, mmahaffie!
posted by Peter H at 8:57 PM on September 2, 2004


Bush isn't necessarily going to win--or rather, he's only going to win if people give up and wuss out, from John Kerry to every single one of the people who could be supporting him with letters to their newspaper, conversations with their friends, etc.

But of course it's easier to give up than to work hard, so maybe Bush will win.

My hope is that the American people--or, at least, enough of them to make a difference--will see how Bush has been playing them for suckers all along. Will see the stupidity and venality of his "dirty tricks" smear campaigning. Will see the obscenity of his bloated, big-government spending. Will see the outrageousness of his "thought police" and "arbiters of public morals". Will see the essential moral bankruptcy of the man.

Bush didn't really win last time, and he didn't have the embarrassing failures of his first administration as a strike against him. The race is still tight--Bush doesn't seem to be getting any appreciable "convention bounce".

If the fucking supposedly-liberal, ha, ha, ha media wouldn't just roll over and print every one of Karl Rove's press releases as though they were fact--where are the Woodward and Bernstein of today?
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:57 PM on September 2, 2004


I'm game to go all night, Shane.

Does anyone have a bulleted list of items from the speech yet? I'd like to compare 2004 and 2000 to see how close they are and how little he's done in four years. Oh wait, 2.4 years with his 40% time off factored in.
posted by fenriq at 8:57 PM on September 2, 2004


Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.

I am happy to see that he finally admitted that by not taking the word of a madman, he personally caused the attacks of 9/11. A bold statement from a bold statesman.
posted by ColdChef at 8:57 PM on September 2, 2004


well Kerry's talking now live on CNN, back in a bit.
posted by Peter H at 8:57 PM on September 2, 2004


Go ColdChef! Go ColdChef!
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 8:58 PM on September 2, 2004


Wow, that speech is kind of a giant pack of lies.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 8:59 PM on September 2, 2004


Is anyone better off now than they were four years ago?

Other than Osama bin Laden, that is.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:59 PM on September 2, 2004


I don't know about the rest of you, but I've had it UP TO HERE with the FLIP-FLOPPERS!!!
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 9:00 PM on September 2, 2004


Pseudoeph, that is the key thing that the Kerry campaign is going to have to emphasize. The American people don't like being exposed as suckers--no matter how soothing it is to be lied to, nobody likes to look like a fool.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:00 PM on September 2, 2004


I find myself wonder what would have happened had the order of the conventions been reversed.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:01 PM on September 2, 2004




ing
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:01 PM on September 2, 2004


I hope that the Log Cabin Republicans will defect en masse. They should. I don't know how any self-respecting gay person can be a Republican after this.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:02 PM on September 2, 2004


ha, FOX isn't broadcasting Kerry's speech!
posted by Peter H at 9:02 PM on September 2, 2004


I wish I could remember where I picked it up (could have been from Zogby or someone) but the margin of error as far as undecideds in this race is a lot greater than pollsters can calculate. Something about the fact that historically, in toughly contested races, undecideds break 65-70% to the challenger and not to the incumbent. I'll see if I can source it somewhere.

Whatever I think of someone that goes around saying that, well they just don't know but they'll probably vote for Bush, I have faith that when the get to the voting booth, they'll starting thinking about how shitty the economy is and has been since 2000, how it sucks that the richest 1% are going to get still more tax breaks, and that Iraq seems a lot worse than they were told it was going to be going in, and pull the level for Kerry.
posted by psmealey at 9:04 PM on September 2, 2004


Because of you, women in Afghanistan are no longer shot in a sports stadium.

Excuse me? What in the wild world of sports was that about?
posted by ColdChef at 9:05 PM on September 2, 2004


Good call, Peter H.

I'm amazed at how good a speaker Kerry is after seeing what a terrible speaker Bush is. I cannot wait for the debates to watch Kerry rip Bush into little bits.

I hope Kerry makes Bush cry!
posted by fenriq at 9:05 PM on September 2, 2004


WolfDaddy, let's take this as an opportunity rather than a defeat. Maybe the Republicans have shot their wad early.

The Kerry campaign needs to come out swinging--with ads featuring the guys who say Kerry saved their lives, with ads that show GWB as the shallow idiot he is (hell, they should just play the "Watch this drive!" over and over), with ads that feature ordinary people complaining about being lied to by Bush.

And funny ads. Ads that mock Bush and Cheney. Ads that make them seem as ridiculous as they are.

As for Edwards? The "tort reform" crusaders aren't voting for Kerry, anyway, so play up Edwards's experience in fighting for the little guy against giant corporate conglomerates that STEAL YOUR JOBS and SHIP THEM OVERSEAS. Get some little old ladies who were poisoned by toxic chemicals or whatever to say how Edwards saved their lives.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:06 PM on September 2, 2004


ya know, just because #1 posts something, doesn't mean its a good post. This is a bullshit politics/newsfilter post, and it shouldn't be here.
posted by bob sarabia at 9:06 PM on September 2, 2004


It's kind of vicious how the Dems basically avoided mentioning GWB for the most part at their convention, whereas the Repubs all but had signs saying "John Kerry Wants To Fuck Your Children In the Ass With A Broken Bottle Because He Is Osama Bin Laden" at theirs
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 9:07 PM on September 2, 2004


BROWN: John, I'm really curious how you would write the lead to tonight.

JOHN HARWOOD, WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, Zell Miller is definitely the lead of the story and I think Cheney Aaron, Republicans like the emotion that he showed tonight in saying don't underestimate what real unvarnished emotion counts for in politics. You got to wonder whether other voters look at Zell and say, he looks like the guy, the spouse in a divorce proceeding who says and oh, yeah, she's a child molester too. How credible are those charges? But I think Aaron, there's a strategic purpose behind what we saw tonight.

I talked to a Bush strategist the other day who said, look, we're not going to get any of the undecided vote. What a speech like this can do is to discourage some of those undecideds for wanting to go out and vote for John Kerry, while encouraging Republicans to turn out, by making them fear John Kerry more. So far in this campaign Democrats have been more effective at getting their base to fear George Bush that Republicans have John Kerry. They turned up the dial tonight...

BROWN: I want to go back, we're running out of time here, back to Mr. Harwood here. John, why do the Republican strategists that you were talking to believe they can't get the undecided vote?

HARWOOD: Well, if you look at the contours of the undecided vote Aaron, our "Wall Street Journal"/NBC poll, 70 percent of them think the country is going in the wrong direction. Very very large majority of them have an unfavorable view of George Bush. A lot of that is baked into the cake. There aren't that many of the undecideds and one of the questions is, they're certainly going to break for John Kerry if they vote, but it's not sure they're going to vote.

BROWN: And so just, OK, now with that, go back and explain why a night like tonight might convince them not to vote.

HARWOOD: Well, because when voters remember negative information about somebody, it gives them less of a motivation to turn out. It dulls the desire to go out and say, OK, well, we're going to change from George Bush to somebody else because in the back of their mind they think the other guy that they're going to change to is dangerous too. They may throw up their hands and say, what's the use?


Well, if you look at the contours of the undecided vote... 70 percent of them think the country is going in the wrong direction. There aren't that many of the undecideds and... they're certainly going to break for John Kerry if they vote.

Stop whining already.
posted by y2karl at 9:07 PM on September 2, 2004


No, because of you, American women are now shot on the streets of Afghanistan. And Iraq. Thanks so much, Republicans.

These debates could be Kennedy v. Nixon. Or they could be Carter v. Reagan. Kerry can be a great, dynamic speaker, or he can be Mr. Stuffy.

My bet--which may be just my hope, but I don't think so--is that Kerry will come off as Ward Cleaver, the stern Daddy who nonetheless has a heart of gold and will make all the bad things better, whereas GWB will come off as Eddie fucking Haskell.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:08 PM on September 2, 2004


Our allies also know the historic importance of our work. About 40 nations stand beside us in Afghanistan, and some 30 in Iraq.

I like how vague he is here. "Look, we gots allies. I ain't saying how many, but there's a lot of them."

And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like Prime Minister Howard, and President Kwasniewski, and Prime Minister Berlusconi and, of course, Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"Hooked on Phonics worked for me!" (though he still can't pronounce Noo-kya-ler)
posted by ColdChef at 9:08 PM on September 2, 2004


Hey, Bob--it's his site, and he wanted to talk about it. Do it differently on your site.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:09 PM on September 2, 2004


bob - way to tell someone how to run their own blog.

on preview: word
posted by iamck at 9:10 PM on September 2, 2004


... and MSNBC just dropped Kerry's speech for Hardball
BUT IN AN AMAZING FLIP-FLOP IT'S NOW ON FOX
posted by Peter H at 9:11 PM on September 2, 2004


Well, yes. And most of those nations are like the mighty El Salvador and Slovak Republic. Nonentities.

Love that Aaron Brown has someone from the super-Republican Wall Street Journal to comment on the RNC, whereas they had Ralph Reed or someone to comment on the DNC.

I have to say that this "liberal media" slander has been one of the most effective tactics of the right. Leftish media bends over backwards to accommodate the right, while the rightish media pretends that the left doesn't exist (or exists only as a centrist punching bag, like Alan Colmes).
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:12 PM on September 2, 2004


hey bob, troll on you crazy yank.

Its news, get over it or get out of the way.

On Preview: Peter H, hit CSpan. All good there!
posted by fenriq at 9:13 PM on September 2, 2004


He could at have least had the decency to wrap things up before "The Daily Show" started. I miss John Stewart for no man.
posted by ColdChef at 9:15 PM on September 2, 2004


Good call ColdChef. Frankly, I am much more worried about climate change than terrorism.
posted by muckster at 9:15 PM on September 2, 2004


The speech sealed my decision to vote for Bush. He's a decent man, who will keep all yoos arrested-development-at-age-22-types where you belong.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:15 PM on September 2, 2004


oh this is sick
LARRY KING INTERRUPTION AND COMMERCIAL BREAK DURING SPEECH FROM CNN (clicks channel) AND COMMERCIALS ON FOX - meanwhile Hardball continues unneccessary hardballing.

fenriq, oh yeah, THANKS!
posted by Peter H at 9:15 PM on September 2, 2004


Don't worry, muckster. Jesus is coming soon.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:16 PM on September 2, 2004


for anyone caring, it's actually cspan2
posted by Peter H at 9:16 PM on September 2, 2004


To everything we know there is a season a time for sadness, a time for struggle, a time for rebuilding.

Wasn't that part of Kevin Bacon's speech from "Footloose?"

(Yes, I know the source.)
posted by ColdChef at 9:16 PM on September 2, 2004


Glad that's resolved, ParisParamus. We were all tied up in knots wondering how you were going to vote.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:17 PM on September 2, 2004


Nice point, no concern about running up the biggest debts in history. There's no hope there.

Kerry just told the story about a six year old kid who got his brother to make bracelets so he could sell them and donate the money to Kerry. He was able to give (remember, this is a six year old!) $680! Awesome!

His speech just ended and it was excellent. Upbeat, not the smear that RNC was, an ugly exposure of just how craven and nasty the Republicans are.
posted by fenriq at 9:19 PM on September 2, 2004


Peter H., Oops, sorry. Didn't see the 2.
posted by fenriq at 9:20 PM on September 2, 2004


ColdChef, I love you. Keep going, you are mining the comedy gold!
posted by somethingotherthan at 9:21 PM on September 2, 2004


Just out of curiosity, when you use that stupid phrase, do you feel more contempt for homosexuals or women?

What a bigoted set of assumptions you have on display there, Mr. Shanks. You couple the tired "gay men are all effeminate" stereotype with the inability to distinguish between a female child and a grown woman. Women are not children, Armitage. Gay is not a synonym for "girlie". Men, by whining like children and squealing like little girls at every disagreeable sight, behave like neither gay men nor grown women. Maybe you should check your sexual-identity prejudices at the door.

And for God's sake stop whimpering.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:22 PM on September 2, 2004


The debt is relative small by GDP standards, particularly given that we are at war.

Of course, if it makes you feel good by thinking otherwise, be my guest. Also, if you don't think federal revenues are actually up since the Bush tax reduction, go wild!
posted by ParisParamus at 9:22 PM on September 2, 2004


BOOSH
posted by angry modem at 9:23 PM on September 2, 2004


Hey Techtrollasslick, what you need to invoke God too? Just like your big bad Bush?

Paris, um why are we at war?
posted by fenriq at 9:24 PM on September 2, 2004


Oh yeah, because Bush wanted to try out his army men for real.
posted by fenriq at 9:25 PM on September 2, 2004


Didn't bobs arabia spend all day talking about women liking rape or something?
posted by Peter H at 9:25 PM on September 2, 2004


That's bob sarabia I mean. And it's the Koby thread.
posted by Peter H at 9:26 PM on September 2, 2004


Men, by whining like children and squealing like little girls at every disagreeable sight,

Children, but especially girls. Gotcha.

And for God's sake stop whimpering.

"Eat a bowl of dicks."
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:26 PM on September 2, 2004


Peter H., Pretty much, maybe that's how he prepped for the RNC tonight?
posted by fenriq at 9:26 PM on September 2, 2004


Ok Peter, that's it. Put down the bourbon before you hurt yourself.
posted by loquax at 9:27 PM on September 2, 2004


Someone tell Kerry the election has started.
posted by RavinDave at 9:28 PM on September 2, 2004


girlie-men

Just out of curiosity, when you use that stupid phrase, do you feel more contempt for homosexuals or women?


whenever i hear  that stupid phrase i feel more contempt for my fellow american.
posted by quonsar at 9:29 PM on September 2, 2004


In the likely event that it comes down to Florida then this speech won't be the determining factor because right now, they have more important things to worry about.
posted by euphorb at 9:29 PM on September 2, 2004


"Paris, um why are we at war?"

Because decades of appeasement have allow cultures of terrorism to grow in the Mideast, and now we need to remedy our mistakes; that, plus the aftermath of the Cold War, which has left us with places like North Korea, and, to a lesser extent, Iran (which is mostly native terrorism).
posted by ParisParamus at 9:31 PM on September 2, 2004


I don't think girlie-man means anything other than weak man; no homosexual thing at all.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:32 PM on September 2, 2004


actually, hurricane is pro-Bush because hunkering down is conservative, and Jeb is the governor.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:35 PM on September 2, 2004


techgno calls someone else a bigot, and FreedomP tries to give us an economics lesson (which, you're wrong again, btw). It's just that kind of evening, I guess.
posted by bshort at 9:36 PM on September 2, 2004


Also I am now certain that no matter who the winner is, he better goddamn well be a very clear-cut one.

I don't think girlie-man means anything other than weak man; no homosexual thing at all.

Unless you're talking about Lyle, the effeminate heterosexual.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:37 PM on September 2, 2004


Keep going Paris, you're sounding more and more intellistupid.

The hurricane would have to be against Bush because its named Frances, duh!
posted by fenriq at 9:37 PM on September 2, 2004


Unless you're talking about Lyle, the effeminate heterosexual.

I guess it's just one of those nuanced Republican things.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:38 PM on September 2, 2004


fenriq: pardon me, I didn't mean to offend your delicate sensibilities. Jesus Christ, I'm not even religious.

Armitage: Now you have a problem with girls' tendancy to squeal? Do you hate pig-tails too? Is your weird fascination with culinary homoeroticism some sort of clue? Next time you want to battle wits with me, don't bring quotes.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:39 PM on September 2, 2004


Fucking French.
posted by ColdChef at 9:39 PM on September 2, 2004


ParisParamus voting for Bush... what a shock.
posted by clevershark at 9:39 PM on September 2, 2004


There is absolutely no doubt he will win.
posted by cmacleod at 9:39 PM on September 2, 2004


Because decades of appeasement have allow cultures of terrorism to grow in the Mideast

And who would be most in favor of that policy? Oh yeah, the big fucking oil companies wanting easy access to supply. Because the hippies are riding bikes and driving Priuses.
posted by billsaysthis at 9:39 PM on September 2, 2004


Ok Peter, that's it. Put down the bourbon before you hurt yourself.

Ha, okay, points for guessing my poison, ;)
But keep your hands off my lap, lullducks.
I haven't forgotten your dumb attempt at throwing a punch.
posted by Peter H at 9:41 PM on September 2, 2004


OOH OOH OOH!
YEAR 2000 BUSH CONVENTION SPEECH ON CSPAN2
posted by Peter H at 9:42 PM on September 2, 2004


I support the protection of marriage against activist judges.

Too tired to dig up the text of the laws written against discrimination, but I imagine that they are what these "activist" judges were upholding. With all the messed up stuff in this country, this guy wants to make a platform out of telling people who they can and can't make a lifelong commitment to, who they can and can't love. Give me a break.

I am running with a compassionate conservative philosophy: that government should help people improve their lives, not try to run their lives.

Oh, the irony.
posted by ben-o at 9:43 PM on September 2, 2004


I thought that the new Iraqi goverment was cutting off hands for petty crimes and that the Bush administration had no problem with that. Why is Bush up there now pointing this out as a cruel form of punishment he stopped?
posted by xammerboy at 9:43 PM on September 2, 2004


Oh forget that, it's all just depressing, like watching Hitler at the Olympics
But a little fun to see Bush green, skinny and pre 9-11 like this.
posted by Peter H at 9:44 PM on September 2, 2004


Or pre 8-01, for that matter, mefi
posted by Peter H at 9:45 PM on September 2, 2004


Why is Bush up there now pointing this out as a cruel form of punishment he stopped?

Why, because Iraq is free(tm) now. Ruled by an Iraqi. Not like when Saddam was in pow... oh never mind.
posted by clevershark at 9:46 PM on September 2, 2004


Man, Pete, I like you. You've got moxie.
posted by loquax at 9:46 PM on September 2, 2004


Sweet call, Peter H.!

I would love to see a side by side comparison of the two speeches to see how many points he tries to pass off as new again.

And techgnollic, I don't have delicate sensibilities, I just get sick to death of your lame ass trolling.
posted by fenriq at 9:46 PM on September 2, 2004


Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror,

Which is the "free" part? The big part where they're growing opium and selling it for weapons, or the tiny scrap our guy holds with a lot of help from our guns?

Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders

At a rate we dictate in accordance with our election timetable...

And more than three-quarters of al-Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed

According to numbers that only you have access to, and Osama isn't one of them, and you've flip-flopped several times about whether you even want to get him.

All that from one short passage. This speech is like a cheap sweater. Tug on it anywhere and it just unravels completely.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:49 PM on September 2, 2004


Armitage: Now you have a problem with girls' tendancy to squeal?

I have no "problem with girls' tendancy" [sic] at all; that's why I don't use girls as a way of expressing my contempt for other men.

Next time you want to battle wits with me

You flatter yourself. I'm just slumming.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:49 PM on September 2, 2004


Word counts from Bush's speech:

'Terror' or 'terrorists' or 'terrorism': 16
'Weapons of mass destruction': 1

'Osama bin Laden': 0

'Iraq': 13
'North Korea': 0
posted by tapeguy at 9:51 PM on September 2, 2004


Fucking French.

Watch out Jeb! You might hit 'er in the eye with that thing!
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:51 PM on September 2, 2004


Incidentally, *fwap* to mathowie, who should certainly know better than to make an FPP so likely to engender defensive reactions on both sides.

My personal defensive reaction is that an incumbent with such mediocre approval ratings, no clear lead before his own convention, and no uncontroversial accomplishments to campaign on is in obvious trouble, and it's ridiculous to waste time worrying about every individual polling blip. On Metafilter or off. The fundamentals of the campaign do not change with every little thing that happens in the news.
posted by Epenthesis at 9:51 PM on September 2, 2004


Man, fenriq, I have to say, this is a creepy year 2000 speech.
For anyone who likes to consider Bush had a lot of plotting (business, political gain, etc) in 9-11, there are a lot of clues or scary premonitions in this fucking 2000 speech!

(glued now to cspan tv with tinfoil hat)
posted by Peter H at 9:51 PM on September 2, 2004


I like the thread, its been fun! With the notable exception of the asshat trolls.

Peter, I went back to South Park, its not as dirty.
posted by fenriq at 9:53 PM on September 2, 2004


I don't know, I think he seemed like a more confident speaker in 2000 than he does now.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:54 PM on September 2, 2004


year 2000 promise from Bush, august speech,

"THEY HAVE NOT LED, WE WILL!" (crowd cheers)
follow up line, "THIS GENERATION HAS BEEN GIFTED WITH GREAT EDUCATION BUT WE HAVE NOT SHARED IT WITH EVERYONE!"

(cue photo manipulated image of Bush reading dumb children's book upside down on the day of 9-11)

"BUT THEY HAVE NOT LED AND WE WILL!"

(he repeats this phrase over and over, chilling!)
posted by Peter H at 9:54 PM on September 2, 2004


I loved the part of us aggresively spreading our freedoms and our way of life, expanding the frontier of freedom.

I got a hard-on and jumped on the coffee-table and screamed "Freedom's got a gun, baby!"
posted by rks404 at 9:54 PM on September 2, 2004


If there's one thing we can be sure of it's that Republicans will keep milking 9/11 for political gains right up to election day. At least now that the RNC is over we won't be seeing it on primetime TV every night.

Double shame point on Giuliani, who said "September 11th" something like 20 times in his speech. Then again I'm sure it's the only part of his administration he wants people to remember.
posted by clevershark at 9:54 PM on September 2, 2004


Yeah, I was just about to post about that, Peter.

I'd love to see Kerry roll it out and smack Bush upside the head with his own hollow rhetoric!
posted by fenriq at 9:55 PM on September 2, 2004


god that "THEY HAVE NOT LED WE WILL" shit is creepy
Hitler motherfucker!

well, OFF TO SOUTH PARK! (last night they had the crips episode, a real favorite)
posted by Peter H at 9:56 PM on September 2, 2004


Because decades of appeasement have allow cultures of terrorism to grow in the Mideast, and now we need to remedy our mistakes;

Appeasement? How about downright backing of Mideast regimes?

Of course, that only makes the moral argument for involvement in the middle east that much stronger -- you could say our neocon friends owed the world a change in Iraq for having helped build Saddam's regime.

But the real question is pragmatic more than moral: who knows how to clean up those messes, rather than make them?
posted by namespan at 9:56 PM on September 2, 2004


shit, Bush just started talking about Hitler as I typed that.

(removes tinfoil hat, too creeped out)
posted by Peter H at 9:57 PM on September 2, 2004


You flatter yourself. I'm just slumming.

Like the kid who picked fights in grade school, until you hit him back, and he squealed "Hey c'mon! PLAY fighting, PLAY fighting!."

Republicans will keep milking 9/11 for political gains right up to election day

Feel free to vote for the party that wants to deny it ever happened.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:57 PM on September 2, 2004


Perhaps next time we can avoid the fundamental error of picking a candidate no one REALLY friggin' wants!!!! Before he was hand-chosen by the DNC, I don't recall a single person here saying: "Boy, I sure hope Kerry manages to pull it off". I DO recall a tremendous amount of significant legitimate grassroots support for Dean (and, to a lesser extent, Clark). Maybe we should concentrate less on Bush and focus more on getting Terry McAuliffe out.
posted by RavinDave at 9:57 PM on September 2, 2004


Might as well schedule a week-long vacation starting Halloween weekend, and begin focusing your sights on '08.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:01 PM on September 2, 2004


"now is a time for republicans and democrats to end the policy of fear"- Bush august 2000
posted by Peter H at 10:01 PM on September 2, 2004


Republicans will keep milking 9/11 for political gains right up to election day.

They do seem to be remarkably proud of the fact that thousands of Americans were murdered on their watch because they sneered at any intelligence they were offered that didn't fit in with their plans. For some insane reason they seem to think it reflects well on them.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:01 PM on September 2, 2004


amazing to note that before Bush's world war our biggest national fears were (according to Bush's own words) education and medicare.
posted by Peter H at 10:03 PM on September 2, 2004


More Bush 2000 speech

Yep, prescription drugs, how much have they gone up in the last four years?

And Social Security, he's gonna fix that, didn't he just mention he's gonna do that this time around?

On Preview: Techgnollic, what in the fuck are you talking about? Are you honestly trying to say that the Democrats are saying 9/11 didn't happen? Are you truly that stupid? How did you figure out how to turn on your computer?

You are truly batshit crazy. No point in even interacting with someone so detached from reality.

Man, I wish Matt would allow MeFites to just ignore and not have to read ridiculous garbage from people like techgnollic, bob sarabia and Paris.

Please, Matt, please?

THE SUPRLUS IS THE PEOPLE'S MONEY! HAHAHAHA, sure it is George. Is the deficit the people's unmoney?
posted by fenriq at 10:04 PM on September 2, 2004


"Today our high taxes fund a surplus. Some say that growing federal surplus means Washington has more money to spend."

He certainly fixed that problem.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:05 PM on September 2, 2004


Btw, text of the 2000 speech here.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:07 PM on September 2, 2004


Keep going Pete and fenriq! More caps! Give us more caps!!!
posted by loquax at 10:07 PM on September 2, 2004


I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building. (George W. Bush, 2000)
posted by clevershark at 10:08 PM on September 2, 2004


Capes? I'm in my skivvies, loquax.

Oh, CAPS? Not a problem. BUSH IS A FARGIN' ICEHOLE MORON.
posted by fenriq at 10:09 PM on September 2, 2004


Damn, he just pronounced "nuclear" correctly twice in a row. Who is this guy?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:09 PM on September 2, 2004


I think "girlie-men" has a definite homophobic/misogynistic zing to it---why shouldn't it? Look at the audience. When Arnold said the phrase "girlie-men" they all started wooping and hollering. Like a wink-wink nudge nudge: screw those sissy sensitive Democrats, we're big bad beef-eating oil monkies and we don't put up with that crap. And it was more overt this time because Arnold got in trouble last time he said it. So he had to have chosen the phrase deliberately as a rejoinder to his critics. Plus, at a time when gay marriage and stem cell research (an extension of which is reproductive rights) are contentious hot topics, it must be a relief to Conservatives to hear a movie star be so non-PC and unleash the sentiments that are lurking beneath the surface. "Girly" is used pejoratively and therefore equates womanhood with weakness. (If it's an age thing and not a gender thing, why does "boy-men" seem so toothless comparatively?) The completed phrase "girly men" creates a sub-category of men that are inferior because of their feminine qualities. By the very fact that they sleep with other men, gay men assume a traditionally feminine role. That doesn't, by extension, mean that all gay men are feminine: it speaks to the associations that language can covertly exploit. "Girly-men" is a perfect example of that.
posted by adrober at 10:09 PM on September 2, 2004


Man, I wish Matt would allow MeFites to just ignore and not have to read ridiculous garbage from people like techgnollic, bob sarabia and Paris.

Okay Matt, you can stop forcing fenriq to read their comments now. He's learned his lesson.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:10 PM on September 2, 2004




All a Republican has to do is mention 9/11 and he's "milking" it. You're telling me you wouldn't like it if George Bush never mentioned it again?

And please, don't pull another John Kerryesque "I support doing it, just not how they do it."
posted by techgnollogic at 10:11 PM on September 2, 2004


All a Republican has to do is mention 9/11 and he's "milking" it.

Actually what he has to do is mention it some 100 times on the podium in 4 days.

Yeah, I know, I should know better than to take technognollogic seriously...
posted by clevershark at 10:13 PM on September 2, 2004


Phew, thanks Krrrlson, I'm much better now. I.Can.Just.Not.Read.Them.Anymore. AH!!!!!

Oh no wait, I'm watching Bush lie in 2000 and say everything that Gore was for when, in reality, its pretty much exactly what he's done.

Turned surplus into massive deficit, generated the culture of fear, sent jobs overseas and he promised an across the board tax cut, oops.
posted by fenriq at 10:14 PM on September 2, 2004


Um ... was "girly-men" homophobic when "Hans und Franz" used it? Don't recall anyone excoriating Dana Carvey and Keven Nealon.
posted by RavinDave at 10:15 PM on September 2, 2004


let's see the dollar bills, loquax
posted by Peter H at 10:15 PM on September 2, 2004


And since Bush didn't really win in 2000, White House lawyers are going to argue that he should be allowed to run again in 2008.
posted by republican at 10:17 PM on September 2, 2004


some 100 times on the podium in 4 days

Well, they were in New York. Multiple former mayors and the current mayor spoke, as did the governor. Plus it was the defining moment of the last 4 years in the United States, and of Bush's presidency. It would be a little odd if they didn't obsess over it.
posted by loquax at 10:18 PM on September 2, 2004


republican, he'll be legally allowed to since he's going to lose this round.
posted by fenriq at 10:18 PM on September 2, 2004


Um ... was "girly-men" homophobic when "Hans und Franz" used it?

Um... wasn't that a comedy routine -- as opposed to a political convention?

Also another part of the routine was that Hans and Franz were both as dumb as a box of hair. Come to think of it it IS hard to escape RNC parallels...
posted by clevershark at 10:19 PM on September 2, 2004


Um ... was "girly-men" homophobic when "Hans und Franz" used it? Don't recall anyone excoriating Dana Carvey and Keven Nealon.

That's because the characters were the joke. They were idiots because they'd think and say something like that. (cf. techgnollogic)
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:20 PM on September 2, 2004


So in fact they did exploit 9/11, at least that's what loquax seems to be saying.
posted by clevershark at 10:20 PM on September 2, 2004


Just because some people have no sense of humor doesn't mean Republicans shouldn't too.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:21 PM on September 2, 2004


Plus it was the defining moment of the last 4 years in the United States, and of Bush's presidency. It would be a little odd if they didn't obsess over it.

Fair enough. In that case, wouldn't you expect Osama Bin Laden's name to come up?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:21 PM on September 2, 2004


Feel free to vote for the party that wants to deny [9/11] ever happened.

As opposed to what, the official party of those who think Iraq was involved in 9/11?

Did you by chance study at the Daryl Worley school of International Relations?

Low blows, sure, but so is this crap about Democrats simply looking the other way regarding 9/11, just because they consider the invasion a completely uninvolved country as a "defense" tactic under the thinnest auspices, shall we say, ill-advised.
posted by namespan at 10:22 PM on September 2, 2004


The debt is relative small by GDP standards, particularly given that we are at war.
As a percentage of GDP, this years projection at -4.5% is the highest since 1992 when it was -4.7%. (1) For some background, since the economy turned around after WWII, there have only been five years with a higher percentage of debt to GDP. That's right, since 1948, there have only been five years:

1983: -6.0
1984: -4.8
1985: -5.1
1986: -5.0
1992: -4.7

GDP growth has slowed during President Bush's tenure as well, but the GDP is still growing and it's not exactly a dramatic slowdown.
Also, if you don't think federal revenues are actually up since the Bush tax reduction, go wild!
Actually, Paris, the revenues are down consistantly since 2000. Here's a list of receipts from the GPO, in millions of dollars.

2000: $2,025,218
2001: $1,991,194
2002: $1,853,173
2003: $1,782,342
2004: $1,798,093*

* estimated
Source: Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2009


Please note their estimates for the next several years support your notion that federal revenues will increase, including a small increase this year and much larger increases for next year. Despite being educated guesses, these numbers are highly susceptible to change.
posted by sequential at 10:25 PM on September 2, 2004


Also another part of the routine was that Hans and Franz were both as dumb as a box of hair. Come to think of it it IS hard to escape RNC parallels...

That, and they were weak pussies of stupid-speaking men wearing heavily padded shirts to display strength.

ANOTHER PARALLEL!

(does caps-count, loquax owes me fifteen dollars before tip, and I'll have you thrown out of the club if you don't pay up, delegate!)
posted by Peter H at 10:27 PM on September 2, 2004


Roosevelt didn’t mention Pearl Harbor at the 1944 Democratic convention.
posted by muckster at 10:28 PM on September 2, 2004


So in fact they did exploit 9/11, at least that's what loquax seems to be saying.

Whatever the political definition of exploit is, sure I guess they were exploiting it. It was event that occured while they were in charge, that they believe they handled properly and effectively and they believe they will win votes by reminded the public of it. Seems pretty ordinary to me. Of course, you disagree and can certainly vote against them.

By the same token, any time a politician has ever opened their mouths about the homeless, the poor, the starving, the illiterate, their military service, nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union, abortion, gun control, death penalty, Pearl Harbor or anything else they've been "exploiting" the issue in question to win votes.

(here's twenty Peter - love the exclamation marks too)
posted by loquax at 10:29 PM on September 2, 2004


"I feel less safe now than I was before, but as of this week it looks like he's going to win."

Matt-a-nattering-nabob-of-negativity-filter.

Um... couldn't we at least have at least *one* debate before we start calling the race?!

BTW, Dewey defeats Truman, Chavez on brink of defeat.

Don't be a wuss, Matt.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:31 PM on September 2, 2004


sequential has just become my new hero! That was cool! Oops, sorry loquax, THAT WAS COOL!
posted by fenriq at 10:31 PM on September 2, 2004


Whatever the political definition of exploit is, sure I guess they were exploiting it. It was event that occured while they were in charge, that they believe they handled properly and effectively and they believe they will win votes by reminded the public of it. Seems pretty ordinary to me. Of course, you disagree and can certainly vote against them.

loquax wins a point on this one -- though, I remain convinced that the Bush administration did in fact exploit 9/11 for one purpose, and that was selling the Iraq war to a public who never would have bought it otherwise and almost didn't anyway. To the extent that they are now trying to sell the Iraq war as a response to 9/11, there is a chain of explotation.
posted by weston at 10:35 PM on September 2, 2004


(watching comedy central making fun of zell miller)
posted by Peter H at 10:35 PM on September 2, 2004


wait, you mean to tell me they are capturing terrorists in pakistan? when did we start being able to distinguish between terrorists and those who harbored them?
posted by lescour at 10:36 PM on September 2, 2004


Damn, Bush's 2000 speech is still on, still yapping but the sounds going all wanky now.

And its over and they're playing what sounds like German war parade music. Very nicely done. Actually he gave a better speech than he did tonight. And Cheney looks positively lively.
posted by fenriq at 10:38 PM on September 2, 2004


I think what bothers me about the ParisParamus style of opinion in this thread is how utterly useless he is. Matt made the courtesy of, despite a clearly left-leaning board, volunteering the culmination of a right-wing love-fest for discussion on his site, and PP's contributions are pure trolls. To the Bush supporters that are actually of use to anyone or anything, my congrats. That said, my disagreement.

Personally, I'm not going to pretend it wasn't a powerful speech. I think it will affect undecideds. But it lacked very much that hasn't been said already, in fact mostly already said by people on this website alone.

In all honesty, I'm confused. I don't get how Bush can talk about being the only defense against terrorism when he refuses to even say "Osama bin Laden." I don't get how he can even pretend to promote compassionate conservatism after the hate-fest of Wednesday night. I don't get how he can cast Iraq favorably, let alone comparing it to Germany- a country that "healed" after it's major war by a massive division with Communist nuclear tension for over half a century. I don't get how he can attack the "liberal Hollywood base" of the Democratic Party when not one, but two Hollywoof actors gave prime time speeches at his own convention. I don't get how he can call Kerry a flip-flopper when he's changed his own opinion on the WOT twice in the last 72 hours. I don't get how he can let George Pataki talk of all the promises Bush delivered when he also promised to find bin Laden. I don't get how several thousand Republicans, delegates of a commitment to a love of their country, can sit there and actually believe the man running against George Bush "hates" the military.

And I just don't get how people supporting Bush can pretend they do.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:39 PM on September 2, 2004


By the same token, any time a politician has ever opened their mouths about the homeless, the poor, the starving, the illiterate, their military service, nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union, abortion, gun control, death penalty, Pearl Harbor or anything else they've been "exploiting" the issue in question to win votes.

The difference there -- and granted, not everyone is able to see it -- is that when politicians talk about those things they do so in order to fix those problems. But setting a political convention in New York and going on and on about "September 11th" (my figure of 100 times was probably conservative) is all about exploiting one single event in order to scare the ovine masses into thinking that changing the administration would be a dangerous thing.

Talk about 9/11 in New York is not, in fact, the same as talking about terrorism. It is one specific event, which happened in the past and which cannot now be changed.

Besides which, Giuliani's Tuesday-night morbid vision of 3000 corpses rising from their graves to implore the American people to vote for Bush was creepy, arrogant, opportunistic and disgusting.
posted by clevershark at 10:42 PM on September 2, 2004


I thought it was a pretty good speech. Just my opinion. I also think Bush is a lock for Prez-- Rove and co. have basically made the election a choice between the stronger and the weaker, and people (especially when they're terrified of terists) will always go for the stongman.
posted by cell divide at 10:44 PM on September 2, 2004


clevershark, no shit? Rudy actually said that? I am damned glad I missed that. I used to have some respect for the man but damn, that is sickening.

XQUZYPHYR, so you're gonna vote for Kerry then? BTW, that was very nicely said.
posted by fenriq at 10:49 PM on September 2, 2004


I really don't understand how Bush comes out as the "strong man" in this war on terror. All he's done so far is fuck the whole thing up.

He tried to win over Afghanistan on the cheap, so that things there are far from safe unless you happen to be one of the provincial warlords (the same guys who had those "titles" in 2001 I might add).

Then he attacked Iraq based on a global domination plan drawn up in 1992 and for which there was little genuine reason, essentially tying down American forces in the region for a long, long time to the tune of 150,000 soldiers (vs. 15000 -- peak -- for Afghanistan).

And all this time George has never been able to muster the guts to have a decent talk with the leader of the country who supplied OBL with 15 of his 19 9/11 hijackers, Saudi Arabia.

Karl Rove must be good if he can pull that trick out of his ass.
posted by clevershark at 10:50 PM on September 2, 2004


Just wait until Osama magically "appears" in US custody a week before ellection...
posted by afx114 at 10:51 PM on September 2, 2004


(here's twenty Peter - love the exclamation marks too)

Thanks, but y'aint gettin no semicolon, grabhands
(counts money) Hey what the fuck with this bullshit canadian currency!

-bouncer moves forward angrily-

g'night folks!
posted by Peter H at 10:51 PM on September 2, 2004


The Triumph of The Won't.

Don't count your corporate whores before they're elected.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:52 PM on September 2, 2004


G'night Peter!

afx114, that is the last ditch effort to put Bush over the top. Lots of people have already postulated that ObL's in custody now and just awaiting the right time to "catch". Maybe even when Bush is over, inspecting the troops, they can have him "catch" ObL, in front of dozens of reporters, of course.

clevershark, well, it would be like George yelling at one of his uncles, I hear the Bush's are tight with the royals over there.

Besides, doesn't Iraq have a little more oil than Afghanistan?
posted by fenriq at 10:57 PM on September 2, 2004


I was totally expecting them to roll out Osama in a cage at the climax of the speech.

Pierce Bush
posted by mr.marx at 11:08 PM on September 2, 2004


Dudes, don't you all know John Kerry Committed Every War Crime In Vietnam Personally? And that he did so while having Gay Homosexual Sex with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and then made them Abort the Children they were Pregnant with?

The guy's obviously a girlie-man faggot terrorist.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 11:12 PM on September 2, 2004


Lots of people have already postulated that ObL's in custody now and just awaiting the right time to "catch".

That's the "October Surprise" scenario... unfortunately we have to wait another month before something like that can happen.

Sure would explain the convention being so "Osama shy" when it's also been so "9/11 heavy".
posted by clevershark at 11:19 PM on September 2, 2004


XQUZYPHYR: Matt made the courtesy of, despite a clearly left-leaning board, volunteering the culmination of a right-wing love-fest for discussion on his site, and PP's contributions are pure trolls.

---- cue circus music -----

*retch*

George W. Bush: Focusing on the future because alcohol abuse and cocaine impair your memory.

Is that the best you can do? Aren't you funded by the Department of Bush's Character Defense?

I don't know how any self-respecting gay person can be a Republican after this.

Hey Techtrollasslick, what you need to invoke God too? Just like your big bad Bush?

god that "THEY HAVE NOT LED WE WILL" shit is creepy Hitler motherfucker!

Oh, CAPS? Not a problem. BUSH IS A FARGIN' ICEHOLE MORON.


Welcome to the discussion folks! Enjoy the courtesy!
posted by Krrrlson at 11:23 PM on September 2, 2004


If OBL were captured, we WOULD know about it. His minions would miss him, and his minions would retaliate, and shoot some of those fuzzy home videos we all love to see.
posted by Jimbob at 11:25 PM on September 2, 2004


Krrrlson, Hey, its better here than in a bar, get in too many fights that way and I promised that I'd never kill again.

By the way, the fargin' icehole moron was taken out of context and I resent that. It was a joke. Taken from a movie. And that makes it okay. So there.

On preview: Jimjob, good point, unless Bush had all, and I mean Keyser Soze style ALL, of them killed. If there are no minions then there is no worry. Oh wait, then the war on terrorism would be over. Damn, nevermind.
posted by fenriq at 11:29 PM on September 2, 2004


I also think Bush is a lock for Prez

For the umpteenth time: Polls are tied. Dead heat. Have been for weeks. Nobody has a "lock", and suggesting someone does at this point is either defeatism or wishful thinking. (If anything, Kerry has the advantage right now, since undecideds always go against the incumbent.

But then, we did this four years ago, didn't we? Votes were tied. No accurate count. Nobody knew who won. But Bush (and Fox) proclaimed he had won, which put Gore in the position of challenger. Set the tone for the whole rest of the game. You have to admire the gamesmanship, if nothing else.
posted by ook at 11:30 PM on September 2, 2004


if its 4 more years of bush - all the assholes (like the creeps and liars at the repubican national lie fest) who vote for him will get just what they asked for:

more war, more national debt, more christian right (or wrong as may be the case), more intelligence failures, more nuclear weapons proliferation, the end of a womans right to choose, more hatred by most everyone else in the world, more terrorism and terrorists, more brain and creativity drain of the american work force, more medical advancements in other countries not controlled by ideology, more raping and pillaging of our and others environments ...

for starters. smart move americans.

on the other hand - perhaps instead of being defeatists ... those who care will help others get informed and get to the polls.
posted by specialk420 at 11:34 PM on September 2, 2004


It was over long ago, but this jackass soup of a thread tells me it's really starting to hit some of you. Welcome aboard.

Damn, that was a good speech, though, wasn't it.
posted by David Dark at 11:55 PM on September 2, 2004


I wonder who is going to win the next election? I guess there's no way of knowing until it happens.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:57 PM on September 2, 2004


Nothing like an hour-long rimming of the American psyche by our (p)resident idiot. All the shower thongs were kind of cute though.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:58 PM on September 2, 2004


more war,

The public likes war. You saw the polls pre-Iraq. It is a democracy, isn't it?

more national debt,

There was a lot of national debt in the 80's and nothing bad happened.

more christian right (or wrong as may be the case),

The nation is mostly Christian, and the Christian right have as much a right as anyone else to try to get their agenda pushed through, don't they? Isn't this a democracy?

more intelligence failures,

Is that really the fault of the president? Clinton had the same information from basically the same people.

more nuclear weapons proliferation,

The countries that want to proliferate weapons are not the type that can be stopped by treaty.

the end of a womans right to choose,

Won't happen unless pro-Life Repubs take over the Senate and the House.

more hatred by most everyone else in the world,

Good thing for George that the rest of the world doesn't vote in the US elections!

more terrorism and terrorists,

And thus more Republican leadership! It's a virtuous circle, how can you argue with that?

more brain and creativity drain of the american work force,

Is this really happening? I would like to see proof. I think America is getting less talented foreigners because of the political situation, but are they actually losing Americans?

more medical advancements in other countries not controlled by ideology,

God bless 'em, maybe it's a sop to those that hate us so much, a crumb from the imperial cake.

more raping and pillaging of our and others environments ...

Canada, France, Russia, England, China, India, and pretty much every other country with the $$$ is pretty good at raping and pillaging the environment as well, even with left-of-center leadership. American companies didn't exactly take a break under Clinton.
posted by cell divide at 11:59 PM on September 2, 2004


wasn't it.

no.

his smarmy little face gestures in between his reading of the lines that someone else wrote for him, gave a clear indication of what a creep and a fool he is. he'll most likely be back in crawford in january, if he's not he is going to have to face 4 years of cleaning up the messes he's created ... won't be pleasant for him or his supporters.

buckfush.
posted by specialk420 at 12:00 AM on September 3, 2004


Dear America,

I hate your freedom.
posted by The God Complex at 12:09 AM on September 3, 2004


Then join hand in hand, brave Americans all,
By uniting we stand, by dividing we fall.


'The Liberty Song' (1768) - John Dickinson
posted by Onanist at 12:11 AM on September 3, 2004



posted by quonsar at 12:11 AM on September 3, 2004


maybe it's a sop to those that hate us so much, a crumb from the imperial cake.

<-- you                                 the point -- >
posted by ook at 12:19 AM on September 3, 2004


Claiming "you're a girlie man" offends homosexuals is like claiming "you're ugly" offends African-Americans: you show more prejudice with your accusation than the speaker did with his statement.
posted by zelphi at 12:22 AM on September 3, 2004


It was over long ago, but this jackass soup of a thread tells me it's really starting to hit some of you. Welcome aboard.

Damn, that was a good speech, though, wasn't it.


David, how do you equate razor-tight polls closer than a margin of error that flip-flop between victors weekly with "over a long time ago"?
posted by namespan at 12:25 AM on September 3, 2004


An "overwhelming media response" could be a way to stop them.

But it costs money.

Donate! $20 helps

DNC

Move On

Or get some lazy friends to vote....
posted by mildred-pitt at 12:55 AM on September 3, 2004


The L.A. Times has Bush ahead by over 6% among likely voters!

(...in a poll taken in late -- not early -- September against Al Gore back in 2000.)

But gee, didn't Gore still win the popular vote? Wasn't he in a far worse position as far as electoral votes went, with a lack of concentration on the states that really mattered?!

The truth is, Kerry and Bush are dead even in the latest poll amongst likely voters, and in polls which are based on registered voters, the trends show that many more people are registerring this time around, more are registerring all the time, and that Kerry is ahead in the battleground states.

So, yeah... it will be a close presidential race. I expect Kerry will only win by about 4% of the vote and a hundred electoral votes. Shame, really, because a landslide would be even better. Oh well... maybe he and Edwards will clobber Bush and Cheney in the debates.
posted by insomnia_lj at 1:14 AM on September 3, 2004


The public likes war. You saw the polls pre-Iraq. It is a democracy, isn't it?

I don't remember there being a vote for going to war in Iraq. So I guess we should justify wars with poll numbers now?


There was a lot of national debt in the 80's and nothing bad happened.

WAS? Whatever happened to it then? The debt Reaganomics created in the 80's is still here-- and snowballing.


The nation is mostly Christian, and the Christian right have as much a right as anyone else to try to get their agenda pushed through, don't they? Isn't this a democracy?

Ehm, democracy == seperation of church and state, freedom of religion, etc. Ring a bell? Their agenda seeks to blur the line between church and state, hence uprooting the very principles this country was founed on.


Is that really the fault of the president? Clinton had the same information from basically the same people.

I don't remember Clinton lying about WMDs or pushing an invasion of Iraq, do you?

The countries that want to proliferate weapons are not the type that can be stopped by treaty.

Well, guess you can't stop us then, since this country has already broken a few treaties prohibiting the production of nuclear weapons, among other things.


Good thing for George that the rest of the world doesn't vote in the US elections!

No, but we would love (and do) participate in theirs.


Is this really happening? I would like to see proof. I think America is getting less talented foreigners because of the political situation, but are they actually losing Americans?

Face it, Americans are dumb as mud. The best test scores and overall academic performance largely comes from those "dirty" foreigners in this country-- primarily Chinese, Indians and the like. They even plan to cap Asian enrollment at UC Berkely because they make up too much of the student body.

Bush is the very symbol of white America-- ignorant, outspoken, pampered, belligerent, and rich. White Americans beware, your time is almost up.


God bless 'em, maybe it's a sop to those that hate us so much, a crumb from the imperial cake.

Let them eat cake then, I guess.
posted by Aikido at 1:23 AM on September 3, 2004


Face it, Americans are dumb as mud.

It sure seems like that sometimes, to those of us on the outside, watching them shit their pants over and over and over again, but that can't be true. There are lots of smart Americans, lots of good ones. Many of the people I dearly love are American, and some of 'em are smarter than me even. Heh.

On the other hand, I think we can safely say America is dumb as mud. How did it get that way? Well, that's the interesting question, maybe. Other than pointing in the general direction of the TV and print media (and the consolidation as a result of the corporatization of the culture in the last two decades) while making significant motions with my eyebrows, I don't know.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:39 AM on September 3, 2004


Who farted in the potato salad?
posted by Slagman at 1:45 AM on September 3, 2004


Hey! Have y'all seen Garden State? I must say, pretty good flick... although it gets a little lazy in the last 15 mins. or so. But otherwise, entertaining and refreshing in a way.
posted by Witty at 2:22 AM on September 3, 2004


My father served eight years at the side of another great American Ronald Reagan. His spirit of optimism and goodwill and decency are in this hall, and in our hearts, and will always define our party.

That about says it for me. Get those fuckers out of office please ...
posted by bwerdmuller at 2:38 AM on September 3, 2004


My father served eight years at the side of another great American Ronald Reagan. His spirit of optimism and goodwill and decency are in this hall, and in our hearts, and will always define our party.
...his son, however, thinks we're a bunch of liars.
posted by bashos_frog at 2:48 AM on September 3, 2004


Hello, I wanted to post here just to add more comments to the pool. I am voting.
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:07 AM on September 3, 2004


The funniest thing about DD, PP and their pals is that they seem to "hate America" more than us damn godless libruls. After all, close enough to 50% of the American population want to vote against Bush. The Bushies hate the 50% who don't want another Bush term. The 50% that are traitors. The 50% that are stupid. The 50% that bow to the threat of terrorism. What's that - 150-odd million Americans they wish weren't a factor? 150-odd million Americans they wish didn't have a voice? 150-odd million they abuse, patronise, and regard as a dangerous threat to the future of the United States?

It's revealing that they seem to think that a few score of posters here on Metafilter represent the evil, leftist anti-Bush cause.

This isn't a bunch of liberal conspiracy-theory academics. This is the American population - which defines the country. What, after all, is a country but the sum of its people? If they despise half of the entire population, you've got to wonder why they don't just move somewhere more to their liking.
posted by Jimbob at 4:29 AM on September 3, 2004


What's that - 150-odd million Americans they wish weren't a factor? 150-odd million Americans they wish didn't have a voice? 150-odd million they abuse, patronise, and regard as a dangerous threat to the future of the United States?

Only ~51 million Americans voted for Gore.
posted by biffa at 4:43 AM on September 3, 2004


tax and spend Democrat

Did Bush actually trot this tired out epithet out? I can't believe in the 8 years of fiscal discipline we saw under Clinton (and lack thereof in the last four) that Republicans still get to use that phrase without being pilloried.
posted by psmealey at 5:00 AM on September 3, 2004


Of course you feel less safe than before. That's what he's banking on and it works. His platform is: The world is scary and it's ok to be a coward. You can cowardly manipulate and weaken the constitution to protect yourself from terrorists both real and imagined. You can cowardly highlight verses in the Bible while ignoring the bulk of it so you can cowardly keep those scary homosexuals from destroying the sanctity of marriage. Whatever that means. The fact that about 26% of women earning more than $50,000 dollars have reported domestic abuse in their lifetime and 37% of women who earn less than $16,000 doesn't undermine marriage at all.

As ParisParimus so cowardly put it:
Yes, he will win, but you will be safe. Happy? That's between you and, perhaps your therapist.
Because obviously if anybody else was president they'd have just turned the other cheek at the El Quaida.
posted by substrate at 5:05 AM on September 3, 2004


With all the gnashing of teeth (and outright laughter at the incompetence and embarrassingly unconcealed hatred) of the RNC and Bush's script-read, I'm amazed to see nobody mention this weirdo-fucknard snippet : "Like generations before us, we have a calling from beyond the stars to stand for freedom."

Muh? You talkin' 'bout your tiny-dicked god, there, son, or what?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:12 AM on September 3, 2004


of=at
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 AM on September 3, 2004


We all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq....

The Vice President even called me unfit for office last night. I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty....

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America.


John Kerry, 9/02/04
posted by psmealey at 5:18 AM on September 3, 2004


bush is a master ... he said just what the american people wanted to hear ... it's a pity it's all lies and false assumptions, but it's what they want to hear ... no doubt, it was the speech he needed to make

advantage: bush ... kerry needs to get off his ass and start fighting and start saying what he's going to do for the country

eventually the american people will figure out they've been hornswoggled ... but it won't be by november, i'm afraid

ooh ... on preview, psmeasley, it looks like kerry came out swinging ... about time he did
posted by pyramid termite at 5:20 AM on September 3, 2004


I used to drop $5 to $10 via PayPal to mathowie every time mefi went down for any significant amount of time. Last time, I just clicked over and gave GWB $25.
posted by geekyguy at 5:30 AM on September 3, 2004


MeFi Righties: Premature Exultation
posted by psmealey at 5:34 AM on September 3, 2004




...and the comments come to a screeeching halt. Goodnight everybody!
posted by Witty at 6:07 AM on September 3, 2004


You know, if GWB doesn't get a 15 point bump today, then he failed, and failed miserably.
posted by bshort at 6:25 AM on September 3, 2004


Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
posted by darukaru at 6:40 AM on September 3, 2004


Yes, let's all discuss the "girlie-man" fart-in-the-wind to death. Make liberals look like neurotic jerkoffs. It's not like there's more important reasons to worry about the Republicans or anything.
posted by jonmc at 6:42 AM on September 3, 2004


Who farted in the potato salad?
I don't know, Slagman, but these mashed potatoes are kind of lumpy.
posted by sequential at 7:16 AM on September 3, 2004


Yes, he will win, but you will be safe.

There is no such thing as "being safe." Grow up.
posted by rushmc at 7:43 AM on September 3, 2004


You know, if GWB doesn't get a 15 point bump today, then he failed, and failed miserably.

I don't think it's possible to get such a point when just about everyone has their mind made up already.
posted by adampsyche at 7:56 AM on September 3, 2004


Defeatism in the face of that farce last night is ridiculous. Bush dropped the ball, he covered the same ground but didn't even cover it as well as in 2000. He's had four years to do what he promised to do (again) last night but he hasn't done any of it.

Delagates were bored and annoyed. Protesters got in and disrupted the proceedings (during the security part about making this country safe).

Bush won't get much of a bump from that awful speech. His timing was bad, he'd pause and look for applause, keep going and then the applause would come at a strange time. It looked stilted and badly choreographed.

geekyguy, so Matt posts a link that we all know is going to go up here anyway and you take that as a political endorsement for Kerry? Makes sense in an opposites day mentality.

pyramid termite, the Kerry speech following Bush's was far better, more inspired, more focused, more lively and without alot of the stupid playground bullshit that Bush pulled. It was excellent.

Kerry should shred Bush in the debates.
posted by fenriq at 7:59 AM on September 3, 2004


Kerry's problem is that he's got the charm of Gore: "The more we see, the less we like". HE'S DONE.

Now, how much will the R's gain in Congress?

This despite $millions in 527 money from MoveON for celebrity ads, daily negatgive Metafilter FPPs, and the big Democrat-leaning media (ala CBS/NYT) boosting Kerry an estimated 15 points in the polls?

http://www.gallup.com/content/?ci=12919

> The lowest bounce recorded is that seen for Kerry following this year's Democratic convention. Support for Kerry actually declined by one point among registered voters (and two points among likely voters) over the course of the convention -- a "negative bounce."
posted by dand at 8:07 AM on September 3, 2004


> the Kerry speech following Bush's was far better... It was excellent.

Smells like FLOP SWEAT. Bush didn't NEED to run on TV after the Dem convention to save himself by bad-mouthing them.

Too bad that rants on Metafilter aren't electoral votes, Kerry would have a landslide on his hands. I wonder who FantasyFilter boosted in 2000? Oh yeah, Ralph Nader.

L
posted by dand at 8:13 AM on September 3, 2004


It wasn't done in the spirit of non-partisan discussion.

I'm with Witty's remark in the gray.
posted by geekyguy at 8:16 AM on September 3, 2004


dand, sorry, I didn't shower yesterday. Flop sweat? A curious term given the volleying of Bush's beliefs this week.

Of course Bush didn't have to go national TV to defend himself after Kerry spoke, Kerry didn't spend half of his time trying to assassinate Bush's character.

And calling the election a done deal (as has been pointed out many times above) is stupid. There's two months to go, the polls are locked and we still have the debates coming up.

But hey, thanks for trying to head it off before things got testy or personal.
posted by fenriq at 8:23 AM on September 3, 2004


RavinDave, where is this assertion that "Kerry was picked by the DNC" coming from?

Kerry whipped Dean's ass in the primaries. How did the DNC affect that? People turned out to vote for Kerry in droves.

My husband is a Democrat, and gets metric buttloads of communications from the DNC, and I can tell you they weren't pushing Kerry in the early stages!

Dand, you'd like it to be "flop sweat".

Matt, and everyone else who's saying "the election's over now"--that's what Karl Rove wants you to believe. It's not true. The election's really tight, and the Republicans are worried. Keep fighting. Don't give up.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:29 AM on September 3, 2004


The thing that amazes me about the republican campaign is how consistently they do something then accuse the otherside of it. For example, The RNC was far more about Kerry than the DNC was about Bush (there was a count of the number of times each convention mentioned the other in speeches) but the Democrats are the ones labeled as negative.

In Wisconsin, the Republicans complained about their signs being torn down, but it turned out that the only evidence supported the idea that people were tearing down Kerry signs.
posted by drezdn at 9:10 AM on September 3, 2004


Of course you feel less safe than before. That's what he's banking on and it works.

Yup. Totally agree.

Restating the bullshit:
"Now is a time for republicans and democrats to end the policy of fear"- Bush august 2000

If this were a comic strip you'd see me leaping up and out of the frame with my feet in the air.
posted by Peter H at 9:16 AM on September 3, 2004


And please, don't pull another John Kerryesque "I support doing it, just not how they do it."

posted by techgnollogic at 10:11 PM PST on September 2


Yeah -- competance is over-rated.
posted by goethean at 9:35 AM on September 3, 2004


the big Democrat-leaning media

Snort. That one gives me a chuckle every single fucking time.
posted by ook at 9:46 AM on September 3, 2004


The lowest bounce recorded is that seen for Kerry following this year's Democratic convention. Support for Kerry actually declined by one point among registered voters (and two points among likely voters) over the course of the convention -- a "negative bounce."
I have to congratulate you on selectively quoting from the Gallup article you quoted.
Kerry is not the first candidate to experience no boon from his convention. George McGovern saw no change in support for his candidacy spanning the Democratic convention in 1972. Other candidates -- Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and Bob Dole in 1996 -- each received very small bounces of no more than three points
However, the results from Gallup's post-Democratic convention poll showed that history might not apply in 2004, a year in which the electorate was activated long before the conventions (usually the conventions serve to activate voters), and a year in which relatively small proportions of undecided and swing voters are available to the two presidential tickets. Also, the post-Democratic convention poll suggested that the Democratic convention might have helped energize Republican voters. It is unclear whether the Republican convention could have a similar paradoxical effect on Democrats, or if Republicans will be activated, as is typically the case.
Since Kerry became the presumtive nominee, there has been little time during which the polls indicated a lead for either candidate of greater than the margin of error. The Gallup polls are national polls, which do not reflect accurately the electoral vote picture. Bush is winning in solid red states by an average margin of 20%. Kerry is winning in solid blue states by a margin of 16%. Many of the "battleground states" are within the margin of error and have changed frequently.

And for a different point of view on the post convention bounce, John Zogby has this to say:
The latest poll, conducted July 26-30, was conducted simultaneously with the convention, though many voters were polled before Mr. Kerry's acceptance speech. Mr. Kerry's slight post-convention boost is what pollster John Zogby said he expected. Only a slim margin of voters is undecided, he says, so the conventions aren't likely to cause major swings of support. "The president will get a small bump but -- like Kerry -- not a big one. There is just not enough give this year," Mr. Zogby says. (1)
For a visual representation of the bounce and how Kerry is doing in the "battleground states", take a look at this flash presentation. You will see data current to August 23, with new data likely being added in the next week to measure the RNC effect.

And let's not forget what happened just as the DNC ended - the SBVFT released a blistering attack on John Kerry. Though it has been thoroughly discredited, along with the second ad they recently released, it has softened voters. It had more free air time than any other ad in the campaign.
This despite $millions in 527 money from MoveON for celebrity ads
Admitedly, I don't see a lot of ads considering I live in John Kerry's home state, but I do visit MoveOn.org. However, I don't recall seeing a single celebrity ad. Look for yourself.
daily negatgive Metafilter FPPs
As opposed to four days of nearly libelous comments made by speakers at the RNC?
and the big Democrat-leaning media (ala CBS/NYT)
Are we forgetting the Republican leaning media? Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and what couldn't pass for journalism in any college seen on nearly every broadcast and cable news station? It's not that most of these shows lean in one direction, as famously as Fox or the NYT, but there has been a systemic failure in news organizations. It's been happening for many years, but that's another conversation entirely.
boosting Kerry an estimated 15 points in the polls?
Speaking of organizations who would fail Journalism 101, Media Research Center has to be the worst organization to gather information from. Do a little research, look for original context and you'll come to the same conclusion that many Republicans do about Media Matters. Obviously there is a bias to both sites, but the total lack of context frequently seen on both sites is disgusting.
posted by sequential at 9:48 AM on September 3, 2004


TechNOLogic said And please, don't pull another John Kerryesque "I support doing it, just not how they do it."

Um, so now Bush and his crew have attained the perfection of their hero Mel GibsonJesus? Or do we still practice a little thing called debate, discussion and concensus in America?
posted by billsaysthis at 10:02 AM on September 3, 2004


I'm bothered by any large group of people chanting anything over and over.
I'm bothered by extreme close-up reaction shots of shiny republicans.
I'm bothered by corny shots of old people when Bush was talking about old people, I'm bothered by shots of young people when Bush was talking about young people.
I'm bothered by the fact that not a single ABC cameraperson found a non-WASP when Bush was talking about ethnic people. (Condi was right THERE!)
I'm almost as bothered by Kerry's 6-yo supporter giving him money as I am by 6-yos in the crowd last night shouting "four more years".
I'm bothered by the lack of digital "gleams" added to Bush's teeth when he attempted to smile inbetween sentences. I'm bothered that everyone in the audience seemed to know when to clap and when not to.
I'm NOT bothered by the fact that they interrupted the speech briefly to point out that there were people/terrorists being removed from the grounds.
I'm NOT bothered by the giant Phallic elephant-heads that some Reps were wearing.
I'm NOT bothered by the fact that Bush lost the last election with pretty much the same speech.

Posting this makes me a terrorist.
posted by hoborg at 10:08 AM on September 3, 2004


I could have criticized my post better than you did. I don't disagree with your choice to criticize it, but I do disagree with how you went about it. I supported your decision to debate and discuss, but how you went about it totally misguided. Do you refuse to admit that your comment did not produce the best outcome? Could it have not been better organized, planned, and executed? Do you deny these things? No, you cannot. Therefore, you are an incompetent poster.
posted by techgnollogic at 10:13 AM on September 3, 2004


So the party which had a ratio of 4:1 police to delegates yet couldn't prevent protesters from getting to the convention floor are the same people that are supposedly better at protecting us from terrorists?

Cognitive Dissonance.
posted by drezdn at 10:34 AM on September 3, 2004


La la la la la. I can't see techtroll's comments. La la la la la la.

hoborg, I must have missed the giant elephant heads in the audience. I did notice that they didn't cut to the senior Barbara Bush when Dubya was trying to leverage his love of his mommy for some more sympathy votes. Why's that?

They tried to show Barbara and Jenna as much as they could even though they added nothing to the proceedings save some mediocre eye candy.

Pierce Bush? Damn, that is both funny and incredibly sad.
posted by fenriq at 10:37 AM on September 3, 2004


. I did notice that they didn't cut to the senior Barbara Bush when Dubya was trying to leverage his love of his mommy for some more sympathy votes. Why's that?

Because she'd already been escorted backstage.
posted by jpoulos at 10:57 AM on September 3, 2004


Was I hallucinating, or did they finally allow Mary Cheney to go on stage with the rest of her family last night after Bush spoke? I noticed that she wasn't on stage with her family after Cheney spoke.
posted by gyc at 11:09 AM on September 3, 2004


What drezdn said. If they couldn't keep their convention secure how do they think they can keep the country secure?
posted by euphorb at 11:16 AM on September 3, 2004


fenriq ... i didn't see the delivery of either speech, i'm just judging on the text ... kerry's was pretty good ... but a little skimpy on details and too generous with rhetoric ... bush's was perfectly tailored for his viewpoints ... it was a pack of lies, of course, but the lies that people want to hear

it's not over of course ... and kerry does have a good chance to shred bush in the debates ... especially now that he seems to be going on the counter-attack
posted by pyramid termite at 11:37 AM on September 3, 2004


jpoulos, so Bush pointing up to where she was supposedly sitting was another lie? When will it end?
posted by fenriq at 11:53 AM on September 3, 2004


I have this to say about that. After all, MeFi is all about the links, right? Right?
posted by Lynsey at 12:01 PM on September 3, 2004


Because she'd already been escorted backstage.

Why, was she protesting?
posted by rushmc at 12:37 PM on September 3, 2004


Bush lead now in double digits
posted by cell divide at 1:19 PM on September 3, 2004


hoborg, I must have missed the giant elephant heads in the audience. I did notice that they didn't cut to the senior Barbara Bush when Dubya was trying to leverage his love of his mommy for some more sympathy votes. Why's that?

My thought was that she was sleeping like the rest of the seniors.

If she was "already escorted backstage", who was he pointing at? And aren't the Bush twins the worst eye candy ever?
posted by hoborg at 1:34 PM on September 3, 2004




hoborg, yow! Can't see how I missed those things, I generally tend to notice morons wearing big grey phalluses on their heads.

Thanks for posting the links to the pics.
posted by fenriq at 3:00 PM on September 3, 2004


cell divide, I saw that article, but I have to question their results seriously. Zogby has the race spread by two points, with nine percent undecided. Just four days ago, their own poll, as amberglow points out , shows Bush ahead by two. ARG has Bush ahead by one. Zogby and ARG polled during the same time period.

The Time poll is out of whack with the rest of the data. Of course, it's the one Bush supporters will cite, but it represents a known within polling - sometimes, despite good, clean execution, the data is wrong.

Let me give you another way to look at it. If you use the latest state by state polls and simulate a national poll, you will find that Bush has about 46.5% of the votes and Kerry has about 43.5% of the votes. These numbers are the result of introducing randomization into which states are represented in the national polls and weighting the states based on the state polls. Sometimes, Bush tops 47%, other times, Kerry tops 44%.

By strictly averaging the state by state polls, Bush has 48% of the vote, Kerry has 45% of the vote.

Additionally, despite the percentage point lead Bush has, the electoral vote breakdown is still remarkably close, just a few points separate the two, with some sites marking Kerry in the lead and others Bush.

Lastly, this should be noted, their methodology is missing from the website. They describe their numbers, but give absolutely not detail as to their methods:
Methodology: The TIME Poll was conducted August 31 – September 2 by telephone among a random sample of 1,316 adults, including 1,128 reported registered voters and 926 likely voters.
They don't describe how they determine if someone is a likely voter, which is critical, considering they removed 20% of the those polled, it's critical. Additionally suspicious is they don't give the percentages of all voters polled.

In determining their likely voters, they expect 82% of their registered voters to actually vote and 70% of all the people they contacted to cast a vote. If those numbers hold true, it will be one truely remarkable election since the average turnout of registered voters in 2000 was only 67.3% and the average turnout of the voting age population was only 51.3%.
posted by sequential at 3:06 PM on September 3, 2004


There's also the little fact that the firm that does Time's polls is headed by a guy who was serving on the Decision Desk at Voter News Service from 96-02. We all know how that went in 2000.

Polling Report has a rundown of major polls, with most showing a tiny difference in numbers, both ways.

This is interesting: The US president, George Bush, was transferred to the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam war because his drunken behaviour was a political liability to his father in Texas, the wife of one of his father's former confidants revealed yesterday.
Linda Allison told the political website Salon.com that throughout the time Mr Bush was in Alabama she never saw him in uniform and had no idea he was supposed to be in the National Guard.
"Georgie was raising a lot of hell in Houston, getting in trouble and embarrassing the family and they just really wanted to get him out of Houston." Asked if she had ever seen him in uniform Mrs Allison said: "Good Lord, no. I had no idea the National Guard was involved in his life."
posted by amberglow at 3:48 PM on September 3, 2004


"Good Lord, no. I had no idea the National Guard was involved in his life."
May explain why Bush Jr. was never photographed with his uniform on while campaigning for his father’s Congressional election.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:41 PM on September 3, 2004


it was a link yesterday, in the post regarding the cross-like podium - just thought it was a nice addition here.
posted by hoborg at 4:43 PM on September 3, 2004


Ya know...mmahaffie idea makes pretty good sense.

God wanted 2.5 million voters to miss this speech. -ColdChef

Yeah...but it's Florida, so Jeb's already voted for them anyway.

I got a hard-on and jumped on the coffee-table and screamed "Freedom's got a gun, baby!" --rks404

I don't care who ya are...that's funny right there.

And I just don't get how people supporting Bush can pretend they do. -XQUZYPHYR

The punchbowls of koolaid were on the left as you entered...

"Girly-men" is a perfect example of that. - by adrober

Agreed. It's a particularly egregious meme.


Just wait until Osama magically "appears" in US custody a week before election... -afx114

Yeah, I'd take a bit of that action...Osama showing up around Halloween is almost a given.


Is that really the fault of the president? Clinton had the same information from basically the same people.

Yes, and published accounts from any number of sources will point out that they gave the Bush admin that info, but didn't want to start anything in Afghanistan just as they were handing over the reins. It's totally the Bush administration who dropped the ball here. Even Colin Powell admits that.


The countries that want to proliferate weapons are not the type that can be stopped by treaty.

Yeah, us and Israel for example.
posted by dejah420 at 5:41 PM on September 3, 2004


The four missing words:

"Now watch this drive."
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:48 PM on September 3, 2004


Yeah -- competance is over-rated.

Dear God, the fucking irony you'll find on this site.
posted by David Dark at 7:34 PM on September 3, 2004


But standing and thinking are not doing. Beliefs and promises are what you talk about when you have no progress to report. Bush pointed to the wars he had launched and the bills he had signed, but he couldn't point to the benefits those laws and wars were supposed to deliver. The benefits haven't happened yet. They "will." --from Saletan about the speech: What Bush would do if he were president.
posted by amberglow at 7:44 PM on September 3, 2004


"BUT THEY HAVE NOT LED AND WE WILL!"

Maybe it was a typo, and Dub meant to say "lied".
posted by mkhall at 8:21 PM on September 3, 2004



Ha of course we lied! We're the dickheads who claim to be compassionate, too!

COMPASSION OF THE COCKS
posted by Peter H at 10:57 PM on September 3, 2004


« Older biographical database on great ideas   |   Hair Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments