Never one to sit still - unless there's something compelling on television, such as "Barnaby Jones" reruns or the infomercial with that bearded psycho selling laundry detergent - I wanted a fresh perspective on the Presidential campaign, so I took in the third debate Wednesday night from a different time zone, specifically the Pacific and even more specifically the 7th floor of my Beverly Hills hotel room and even more specifically than that in a brand new pair of boxer briefs.
I hope that purchase was counted in the latest Gross Domestic Product numbers. Because I think we've all, at some point, produced something in our underwear that was both gross and domestic. Not coincidentally, both Kerry and Bush were trying not to crap themselves Wednesday night in the final face-to-face meeting before the November 2 election. (I thought this new blog was supposed to be a poop-free zone. I don't even know me anymore.)
Nonetheless, both candidates came to play on this night, unveiling groundbreaking initiatives to defeat terrorism, balance the budget, educate our children, house the homeless, feed the hungry, protect the environment, and put Social Security safely in the lockbox Al Gore doesn't need anymore. Best of all, they presented these plans with easy-to-understand directions on how to achieve and pay for everything, all while laying out respectfully and sincerely a fresh vision of what each hopes America can become over the next four years...
And if you don't think that's one steaming pile of gross domestic product, you might want to check your drawers. Different time zone, same ol' you-know-what:
Bush is a buffoon, who wakes up each morning determined to find new ways to help the rich get richer.
Kerry's hiding a fiendish plot to turn complete control of the country, including Oscar nominations and NFL instant replay, over to a clandestine, international governing body that grew out of the Little Rascals' He-Man Woman Haters Club.
The only difference Wednesday night was the moderator, Bob Schieffer of CBS, who showed clear bias toward the President. Schieffer - whose brother Tom was president of the Texas Rangers when Bush owned the team - refused to challenge the President on why he authorized trading Sammy Sosa to Chicago for a washed-up Harold Baines. The damaging effect that trade had on the Rangers has been well-documented, unlike the fax sent from the Abilene Kinko's to Bob Schieffer's CBS colleague Dan Rather.
With nothing settled from these three debates other than the fact that Kerry still looks like Fred Gwynne from "The Munsters" and Bush still can't complete a sentence, both sides will repair to the campaign trail where they'll say the exact same things for the next 19 days without those pesky 90-second rebuttals. Actually, the next rebuttal belongs to us on November 2.
4 comments:
I found plenty of new information in this debate. Kerry knows no boundaries in regards to respect. His comments on Cheney's daughter were totally innappropriate (and curiously absent from your post Boone) His statement that everything is a gift from God (rape, terrorism, child abuse) were an indication of his lack of knowledge of God. The fact that would not support marriage as only between a man and a woman will do more to unravel the moral fabric of our nation than any tax break to Trump ever could.
No, I found out a lot last night. Bush is a bad debator but Kerry is the bufoon in my book. Not being able to complete a sentence is bad but not being able to vote in the senate is worse. Going to war without finishing off Bin Laden is bad but going to war against the unborn is worse. Not finding WMDs is bad but not finding the common decency to keep your opponents private family affairs out of your speech is worse.
Bush won that debate and if you don't think so then you can just take your new gross domestic filled drawers and wash them in the choice laundry detergent of all bearded psychos.
Boys boys boys... Put your gross domestic products in the garbage... Democrat or Republican, it goes out every Tuesday.
Of course if Kerry is elected, you'll want to try to sell that trash on ebay to pay your taxes.
Joel, I won't take issue with your points - though I think some are debatable - but I still contend nothing new happened Wednesday night. You didn't like Kerry before the debate, and you don't like him now. You loved Bush before, and you love him now. Not that there's anything wrong with that. All I'm saying is that you watched the debates in a certain context, a pro-Bush context, which meant everything that happened was viewed with that slant. Again, nothing wrong with that, but, for example, had Bush said something similar about a Kerry or Edwards kid to what Kerry said about the Cheney kid, my bet is that you would've told the Left it was no big deal and to get over it. The rest of your points didn't come from anything new Wednesday night. It was the same stuff you talked about in a previous post.
P.S. Even Bush fans had to cringe when the video was played roughly 214,000 times later that night of the March 2002 press conference in which a deer-in-the-headlights Bush said he didn't really think about Bin Laden very much, that he wasn't concerned with him. First, he looked about 10 years younger - running the free world tends to age one a bit. Second, he was in the open press conference, which is second only to the debate as his worst forum.
Ok Barnaby, your points about my points were well taken. Quick clarification and then confirmation. First, I didn't love Bush before the debate. He can't seal the borders, doesn't catch Bin Laden (I don't buy we are using every possible means argument either - 120,000+ troops in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanastan doen't equal "every possible means" in my book) and he can't use common sense that would say to Kerry something like, "look dude, if you tell your kid 17 times to do something and they won't what makes you think that #18 is going to be different? There comes a time where a time out is out of the question and a good butt whooping is the only answer. And let me try to explain why, just possibly why, we thought their were weapons of mass destruction when there were not. It is so freakin simple...Saddam wouldn't let us in to look. Oh sure he let us in towards the end, when our ships were in route, but even then he wouldn't let us in everywhere we wanted (schools, mosques, palaces, etc) so how could we have known for sure."
Anyway, there are just three reasons that I don't "love" Bush.
Now for the confirmation, Bush said that he wasn't concerenced about Bin Laden and he did look like a dear in the headlights. You are right my friend about that.
I don't think that Bush is "God's man" or even that America is "God's country" yet I'm still voting for Bush.
You will too.
Post a Comment