Dems Still Have A Chance To Come Out With a Clear-cut Victory in Debate #2

[deckerd]

There are three phases to the political process here -- pre-debate expectations;
substantive debate performance; and post debate spin, which is where we're at now.
The latter is mostly concerned with style points and obvious flubs on the part of *.

Now, clearly, Dems' problem with Debate #2 has been losing the pre-debate
expectations game -- badly. I think it's safe to say only a tiny minority of us
expected Bush would do better than he did last week. That's a shame.

Everyone else was relying on hopes and dreams -- letting the RW go on
and on about how Bush would find it very difficult to improve in time
for the second debate. Repubs know how to play the expectations game;
that's what all those RW bloggers going "if Bush shits his pants then
this election is over, I am very pessimistic" was all about.
Pure psych-out. Dems do not even know how to stay on-message.

This is what makes it so difficult to argue with those who feel Bush won
simply because he did better and Kerry did not commensurately improve.

However, the post debate spin CAN STILL BE WON on the basis of terrible substantive blunders
by Bush (and one or two crucial but overlooked style blunders, overlooked because
Dems had conditioned the media to expect a total Bush breakdown which never happened.)

We have only a DAY OR SO to get everyone in the media aware of Bush's
blunders and turn it from a self-declared draw into a Kerry victory.

1. The angry jumping-up.

A different Bush showed up for this debate -- it was like Gore all over again!!
Bush is sending MIXED MESSAGES with his performance last night.

2. The Dred Scott quote.

What is * telling African American voters? that he wouldn't reimpose slavery? This is disturbing and thoughtless.

3. The Missouri-coalition quote.

This is a killer quote used by Kerry. It WILL sink into the ether if y'all do not echo it and endlessly promote it.

4. The Timber Company Joke. TURN THIS AGAINST BUSH.

This is exactly how Repubs played the Gore debate, so LET'S ROLL.

If Dems do not sieze on these and flagellate them TO DEATH via media contacts, etc. then the post-debate spin will be a Bush technical victory because of lowered expectations and destroy Kerry's momentum.

It matters not what the media is saying now, it matters where the story arc is headed.

This could be the election, people. It doesn't matter who YOU think won - it matters what the media is telling everyone who didn't see the debate. "The media" is only "the enemy" when we are not using it as a TOOL. We must endeavor to do so.

Expectations alone give the post-debate spin decisively to Bush because substantively, there was no clear victor (each side clearly won from the perspective and ideological assumptions of his base voters) and expectations wise, even Dems were caught off guard when * did not s--- his pants (I was not).

Post-debate spin should concentrate on Bush's blunders. HAMMER on them. NOT ALL OF THEM, a limited number, fer Chrissakes. See above. Don't think Rove isn't working overtime to try and compound the sense of a Bush win by urging the media to dwell on Kerry's uncharacteristic stammering, his (IMO uncharacteristically weak) responses on social issues, etc.

[cpa]

1. Bush Is Terrible

I don't think Bush did very well. Those republicans are seeing what they want to see-not what really is. Why they are loyal to such a bungler is a mystery to me. I don't buy that low expectations game. That is like saying " he lost the first game by 20 points; he lost this game by 7 points; so he really won. That is flawed logic.

[deckerd]

2. What does this have to do

with what I wrote?

We are talking post-debate spin. Complaining about how the average American embraces low expectations which were set for Bush by Dems AND Republicans is not spin; it is a defensive suggestion that Kerry lost.

If Kerry won the debate, make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Hammer on the specific Bush statements and actions that caused him to LOSE the debate amongst those of us who are not naturally inclined to believe * is an idiot.

We are talking media and undecideds who only know what they hear on TV. Would you prefer to see replays of Kerry's brief moment of speechlessness? That too is a consequence of the high expectations y'all set for Kerry this time around.

I am talking spin. The expectations game is over; nobody's watching the third debate except committed voters. Unless * DOES brak down in debate #3, it WILL NOT influence the election (and we have no way of controlling that).

Focus on post-debate spin, which you can still sieze the upper hand.

Focus on the four key Bush blunders like those I mentioned. Blast-fax the media.

[illuminaughty]

4. Don't forget this one

The comment about choosing someeone for the Supreme Court. He'd choose someone that would vote for him. A remarkable statement

[deckerd]

6. You're right, that makes top five n/t

[deckerd]

12. #6 -- Group Maternity Homes

I saw in another thread that Bush mentioned Group Maternity Homes
(pre-1960s hostels for unwed mothers who didn't want anyone to know they were pregnant; many were institutions you could be committed to.)

Also, refusing to admit any mistakes. Pundits are siezing on this

So which decade is Bush fondest of? 1850s? 1950s?

That makes seven cool talking points we can sieze on this week:

1. No mistakes

2. Jump-in-anger

3. Dred Scott decision

4. Timber Company

5. Judges that'd vote for him

6. Missouri third biggest forces

7. Bring back group maternity homes


(and a partridge in a pear tree!)

[sundancekid]

40. please remember that Dred Scott decision is CODE to overturn Roe v Wade

see link below: the RWnuts have long ago settled on this CODE of Dred Scott=Roe v. Wade

take a look at their twisted-sister logic from the National Right to Life website ...

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL699/slave.html

~snip~
Court Blunders on Slavery and Abortion

One of the more frequently used arguments to defend abortion goes like this: The United States Supreme has settled the issue. Because the Court has ruled that abortion is legal, it must therefore be a correct and moral act beyond challenge.

In an 1857 court case, known as the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court ruled that slaves, even freed slaves, and all their descendants, had no rights protected by the Constitution and that states had no right to abolish slavery. Where would Blacks be today if that reasoning had not been challenged?

The reasoning in Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade is nearly identical. In both cases the Court stripped all rights from a class of human beings and reduced them to nothing more than the property of others. Compare the arguments the Court used to justify slavery and abortion. Clearly, in the Court's eyes, unborn children are now the same "beings of an inferior order" that the justices considered Blacks to be over a century ago.
~snip~

We've got to spread the REAL reason behind smarmysmirk's mention of Dred Scott case -- ANOTHER perfect example of their bait-and-switch -- they want us to be baited with their "compassion" toward injustices of slavery, BUT they plan to SWITCH to justify cheneying with Roe decision.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

3. Are you a professional political strategist?

You really sound like you are or should be. Have you
contacted the Kerry campaign? You should. Seriously.
I for one will get right on this. I will pick the Timber
Company Joke and turn it against Bush.

[deckerd]

5. Mebbe I should, thx!

"Plays well with others" was never my strong suit, but hey, it worked for Howard Dean's guys. :-)

[A-Schwarzenegger]

7. Yeah it worked great for Dean's guys ...

for a while anyways ...

So I'm thinking on the Timber Company Question,

Dear XXX,
How could you own a Timber Company and not know it?
And if you own it, how could you only make $84 on it
or on taxes or whatever. I think that shows you're
either stupid or can't remember anything or, else you
don't know what you're doing, with making only that of
a little? So he's a liar, a moron, lost his mind, and
or can't run a business for shit. Plus, something with the
Business S thing.
Sincerely,
XXX

[crispini]

8. He's only a part owner

see factcheck.org (or .com, hehehehehe)

edit: but I like it.... mind if I borrow part for my LTTE?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

11. I don't care how much of a owner he is.

I could go chop up all the wood in my neighborhood
and come out with more than 84 dollars, or that in a
tax write-off Corp S etc., in one weekend. Plus, I'd
know about it if somebody asked me, because I doubt
that my neighbors would let me forget it with their
wood being gone. No matter what I owned, no matter how
much of it I owned, I would know about it, unless I was
losing my mind or pulling a fast one with the wood.

[deckerd]

13. Bush is Pulling a Fast One with his Wood - LOL n/t

[A-Schwarzenegger]

14. Hell yeah, go ahead on.

[NJmaverick]

9. Repeat after me- bush was out of control last night

A leader that can't control himself can not control our nation.

[SeanQ]

24. Thanks - here's the letter I sent out locally

After three debates, many Americans are finally getting to see who John Kerry and John Edwards are for themselves. By hearing them directly, they are getting a better idea of what they stand for, not what cable news and talk radio has been saying they stand for.

Just as importantly, they are getting a chance to see the current President for what he truly is. In last Thursday's debate, they saw Bush as man who is easily flustered, petulant, and with a real difficulty grasping the facts. While his performance was perhaps a bit better last night, do we really want a president who is judged on the criteria 'well, maybe he didn't suck this time'?!? Well, at least he wont appoint a pro-slavery judge. Just a judge that 'would vote for me'.

In the second presidential debate, President Bush showed he is still incapable of accepting the facts even in the face of more contradicting news this week, including from his own people. He is still incapable of admitting even one mistake. Are we to believe he has been perfect his entire administration? How about basically ignoring the intelligence warnings of imminent terror attacks, and the advice of the previous administration on how serious Bin Laden was to strike us, Mr. Bush? If someone can't see any error in themselves, they will never be able to improve their performance.

Perhaps even worse, Bush was nearly out of control at the debate. At times yelling at the crowd and even jumping in anger at the moderator, and lurching around the stage. How can a leader that can't control himself control our nation?

Americans have seen the candidates together under pressure, the choice is far more clear now. That comparison has swung momentum in favor of Kerry and Edwards, and the polls are starting to reflect it.

Finally with hope,
Sean Quinlan

[deckerd]

25. Awesome!

Replace "suck" with something less colorful :-) and this deserves to be in the op-ed pages of battle ground state newspapers.

[DeepModem Mom]

10. Exactly right -- I think this happened with Cheney/Edwards...

as issues developed after people, and press, had a chance to mull over the debate in their minds, and see things in retrospect.

[underpants]

15. "Clear cut"? Like in...............WOOD?!?

:bounce:

[psychopomp]

16. KICK

(though I find this debate to have been as much a draw as the Tyson-Lewis fight)

[crispini]

17. Ok, here's my LTTE on the wood thing.

Basic concept by A-Schwarzenegger, words mostly mine, facts by factcheck.org.

Need Some Wood?

What a priceless debate moment. Bush claimed that "900,000 small businesses" would be taxed under the Kerry plan. Senator Kerry clearly pointed that 96% of small businesses would NOT be affected by his plan. And how even George W. Bush qualified as a small business owner with only $84 worth of income from a timber firm he partly owns. Then, Bush got the laugh of the night when he said "I own a timber company? News to me. Need some wood?"

However, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales." This man is so far removed everyday life he doesn't even know all of his investments. And he completely missed the point. When such a minor holding qualifies you as a "small business owner," it's hard not to see that as a big loophole in the tax laws.

The laugh's on YOU, George.

(Comments, suggestions, improvements?)

[underpants]

18. That is on the mark

Spot on :thumbsup:

[A-Schwarzenegger]

19. Hey, you made it make sense!

Good. But I think the $84 was a deduction, wasnt it?
Check that.

[deckerd]

27. A deduction counts as income, I think

money he received deducted from the total amount of taxable income.

I'm not sure about that, I'm terrible at taxes and balancing books.

But isn't it true generally that if you take a deduction it's because you either had income you don't want to be taxed for, or you took a loss or spent money on something and you don't want to be taxed for the income you spent on that? (Remodeling a house, etc.) No idea.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

35. I'm the Governor.

So I don't pay takes. So I don't know.

[unfrigginreal]

21. Great LTTE!

Don't change a thing. :yourock:

[mcg]

36. "Cut them all down!"

In the Lord of the Rings movie, the evil Saruman says "Cut them all down!" (referring to the trees). This reminded me of the Reagan, Bush, and now little Bush administrations' attitude towards trees. They only see trees as a way to make money for them and their filthy rich buddies. Reagan said "trees cause pollution" and now Bush is basically saying that trees cause forest fires. As said by Common Dreams:

"The best way to avoid these catastrophic fires is by trimming undergrowth and clearing debris, combined with natural burns of the kind that have sustained healthy forests in past millennia. Those procedures, guided by science and surgically precise forestry, can return forests to near their equilibrium condition, in which only minimal further intervention would be needed.

On the other hand, the worst way to create healthy forests is to thin trees via increased logging, as proposed by the Bush administration."

<http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0829-01.htm>

Yes, Bush is truly evil. Instead of fixing the problem, he twists it for his own selfish gain. He, like Saruman, does not care for life.

It turns out that Bush owns 50% of a timber company, this is not at all surprising.

[deckerd]

38. There was a time when Cheney would walk in my woods...

...but now he has a heart made out of Metal and Wheels. :evilfrown:

Yes, those footage of Bush clearing gorse on his ranch is eerliy familiar...

Speaking of literary allusions, one thing I'd wanna see (aside from Rumsfeld as The Riddler)
would be a version of that GEICO ad:

"DO YOU, Donald Rumsfeld, take this woman to be your wife?"

"Well, now, heh heh, that depends on the meaning of 'Do you?' Long-term commitments entail risk and uncertainty. Take the invasion of Iraq. Are the parties involved prepared to make the necessary commitments to restore order in that benighted country? Will Iraq ever be safe from terrorism, violence, and looting? WHO among us, will ever really know?"

KERRY: "I do."

"You may kiss the bride"

[soupkitchen]

20. Bush : selling wood but delivering splinters

That's my bumber sticker line to address point four.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

23. Or ... Selling wood but delivering wedgies.

I bet he goes all around the WH giving them out.

[mumon]

22. I"m on it...

The timber company can be W's version of his father's check-out scanner fumble: the sob doesn't even know what he owns!

[WilliamPitt]

26. Sig link

Use as directed. :)

[deckerd]

29. Ex-x-celent.

:cry: There's no Mr. Burns smilie!

[Demi_Babe]

30. great piece of writing

[NightOwwl]

28. I'm really surprised DNC hasn't been all over this.

They were quick to come out with the "Faces of Frustration" video after debate #1. And it seems like there were more surrogates making the rounds also. :shrug:

[girl gone mad]

33. I wonder if maybe they want to let the Bushies get away,,

with thinking they won this round. :shrug:

[Teaser]

31. We've already won the post-debate spin.

Just not by as much as last time. The "furious George" meme is percolating and Bush needed a knockout to blunt Kerry's momentum. He didn't get it.

[Silverhair]

32. You have to do it in 4 days!!! Wednesday is next debate.

Damn!!! Rove pulled a slick one on Kerry's guy's with the debate schedule. I bet that Bush's first debate performance was a fake, to get Kerry overconfident, and greatly lower the expectations for Bush. There is no other way for him to have been that bad in the first debate, and "improve" that much. We've been had.

Bush & Rove had 10 days to evaluate Kerry's style and prepare Bush for debate 2. Then Bush shows up "greatly improved" for the 2nd debate, and Kerry hasn't "improved". (Hey, Kerry was already operating at max. He was already giving it his all, just like he is supposed to.) But he was definately surprised by the "new" Bush. Now Kerry has only 5 days to prepare for the "new" Bush, while trying to fend of the new attacks.

Oh,Well. Kerry was a prosecutor, so he is used to this type of stuff from slick defendents. Debate 3 is back to the talking head forum, and the topic is domestic issues. We will all be watching.

Kerry needs to deliver a knockout punch. Bush's poll numbers have started to creep up again.

[deckerd]

37. I agree except for your last line. Also, Weds debate should amplify spin

Whatever spin comes out of last night's debate is destined to be amplified amidst the pre-debate coverage on Monday, Tuesday AND Wednesday. The fact that Bush is percieved to have fought Kerry to a standstill is GOOD for Kerry expectations-wise...

The fact that Bush did it by being so agressive is BAD for Bush if it means the Media will now spend half the week talking about how, sure,
reasonable people thought * looked like an asshole but apparently
there are some undecideds out there -- somewhere -- who like Bush when he's like this.

Just like the folks (perhaps including myself) who figured Dean's passion might actually help him if he just turned it up a notch. ;-) Keep it up, George!! You're doing grreat!

Kerry has proven himself. It is Bush who needs to deliver the knockout punch on Weds night. Otherwise Kerry will have proven that there is no man behind the curtain. Finally, the expectations game and the reality are beginning to converge.
:evilgrin:

[Poiuyt]

34. Just sent mine

I kept it short and simple and sent it to Hardball, and several of the shows on both CNN and Fox

[deckerd]

39. George W. Bush: WOULD YOU BUY FIREWOOD FROM THIS MAN?

(footage of George W:)

"I didn't know I owned a timber company!"

VOICE: GEORGE W. BUSH.

"Wanna buy some wood? Heh heh"

VOICE/TEXT: WOULD YOU BUY A STACK OF FIREWOOD FROM THIS MAN?

(pause - text disappears - black and white freeze-frame on Bush)

VOICE/TEXT: ("perhaps so, but..." tone of voice)

....... Would you hire him to run your office?

It's time to send a message that
THE PRESIDENCY IS NOT AN ODD JOB.

John Kerry will be the FULL TIME President of the US.
And he will KNOW where your money is going, and how it's
being spent: to PROTECT American jobs and American lives.

(complimentary footage of Bush working hard, clearing brush)

George Bush is an honest man. He'd make a great small businessman.

But what America needs is LEADERSHIP, NOT SALESMANSHIP.

It's time for new leadership and new credibility in the White House.

"I'm John Kerry, and I approved this message."