anyone on TV talking about "need some wood?"

[Cocoa]

in my mind, this is one of the most memorable moments from ANY debate, and yet I have yet to see a single mention of it in any of the pundit blather.

Of course, "need some wood" is all over the Internets, but what about on TV?

Wait, I actually have seen two mentions of it, but neither by a pundit. First, one of the networks talked to a pair of voters, one pro-Bush, one pro-Kerry, right after the debate. The reporter (Diane Sawyer maybe), asked each to cite any moment when their opposing candidate stood out. The pro-Kerry woman said, "I like it when Bush asked us if we needed any wood."

Also, SNL spoofed it pretty good.

But what about the pundits?

[Toucano]

1. I've not seen it brought up.

Other than what you've cited already.

It's disgusting because it's really indicative of how out of touch Dubya is. He doesn't even understand how his policies affect his OWN finances, much less yours and mine.

[seaj11]

3. you're right, but how many people

are going to see that? I'll bet the conservatives are still laughing with glee at the president's "wit." And undecideds are probably going to think that Kerry doesn't know what he's talking about. Bad move on Kerry's part.

[Toucano]

6. How many will see that?

As many people as are SHOWN it. Talk about it at work, talk about it at church, at school, and everywhere you go.

How many people saw the "pucker" on the night of the debate? How many have seen it now?

It was a brilliant move on Kerry's part. He just needs you and I to pick up the ball and run with it.

[demokatgurrl]

2. It should be pointed out all over the TV

that he doesn't even KNOW he owns part of a timber company. Not only is he out of touch with the big, wide world, he is out of touch with his own accounts! And he acted so cocky- of course we know Kerry wouldn't make something like that up. Bush would, and has; Cheney would, and has.

[J6ash]

4. Wood

Came up pretty good on SNL.
The last two weeks they have been blistering Bush.
And "It's hard work." "It's work... and it's hard".

[GR]

5. Chris Wallace Brought It Up But Distorted What It Meant My Letter To Him

Dear Chris Wallace:

In your comment this morning, you stated that John Kerry was WRONG when he asserted that Mr. Bush's $84 income from a "timber company" was incorrect; it was an "oil and gas producing company."

Your statement completely, perhaps intentionally, misses the larger point of Mr. Kerry's argument; that Bush's assertion that raising taxes on the wealthy would raise taxes on small businesses and hamper job production was false. Bush said there were 900,000 such businesses that would be affected.

In reality, there are only 72,000 so-called "small" businesses who have EMPLOYEES who would be affected by this rollback of the Bush tax cut for the upper bracket elites. And if someone is reporting an income, including small business profits, of $200K, then that individual IS wealthy by normal standards, if not within the punditocracy. As a small businessman filing Subchapter S myself, I know that any small businessman could do things such as increase advertising, invest in improvements in plant and equipment or hire more people if he wanted to reduce the Form C income on his 1040 and keep himself out of the upper bracket. I assume any thinking small businessman would have already done that before coming out ahead by $200K. That means that "small" businessman is part of the elite and should pay more and get this nation back on a track to fiscal responsibility.

Kerry's timber company example was designed to show that Bush was misleading the voters by wrongly counting people with ANY income from business ownership, whether they had employees or not, in his 900,000 figure. The fact of whether that income was from a timber company or an oil and gas company is irrelevant.