And this is why I did not watch the debates.

WSJ reporter confirms authenticity of private email about being in Iraq. Very damaging to the arguments that Iraq is "getting better."

Let me get a few things off my chest:

  • The fact that Bush is a "devout Christian" has no bearing on whether he should be President. I'm getting tired of all this talk about religion.
  • Likewise, Kerry constantly reminding us he was in Vietnam also has no bearing on these elections.
  • I took a quick skim over the transcripts, and it look like the whole debate was pretty much ripped from previous speeches both candidates made (as well as stuff on their websites????)
  • Flipping through TV, they showed a few clips of the debates. Was Bush repeating himself throughout the whole thing? My goodness.
  • The fact that Bush is not a good public speaker should have not be any indication towards his abilities as el Presidente. We've had tons of presidents who have not been very publicly suave, but have done just fine.
  • They need to make me President. I would be awesome.
Posted by roy on October 1, 2004 at 01:52 PM in Ramblings | 19 Comments

Related Entries

Want to comment with Tabulas?. Please login.

monkeynotrobot (guest)

Comment posted on October 4th, 2004 at 10:56 PM
roy: Likewise, Kerry constantly reminding us he was in Vietnam also has no bearing on these elections.

I would disagree with this since a recent poll showed that 75% of voters are more concerned with a candidate’s character then the issues.. b/c of the republican's insidious smear campaign Kerry is seen as a flip flopper who didn't deserve his purple hearts.
Comment posted on October 5th, 2004 at 12:36 PM
Yeah, that whole thing was BS. I'm going to take the safety route and assume all politicans have no character. Therefore, the whole issue of whether Kerry was in Vietnam doing what he said and whether he deserved those Purple Hearts should have no bearing on whether or not he deserves to be President.

PM5K (guest)

Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 11:02 AM
You are Republican, if Bush were the incumbent Democrat President you'd be all over his ass for the stupid shit he says just about every time he opens his mouth...
Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 07:10 PM
Please try again. I'm not a Republican; and Bush's political party has absolutely no bearing on whether I like him or not. Same with Kerry.

PM5K (guest)

Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 07:32 PM
I've read all of your posts for quite some time and it is quite obvious to me that you are Republican.

Come out of that closet, everyone knows anyway......
Comment posted on October 3rd, 2004 at 01:57 AM
I am _not_ Republican. Their social and fiscal policies are laughable. Just because I agree with their foreign policy does not label me under one party.
Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 09:45 AM
There was definitely a lot of repetition, but we got to remember Bush's and Kerry's target audiences: the undecided voters. Those who have been keeping up with politics enough to a) have enough interest to watch through the entire debate and b) recognize that the entire debate was just rehashing what they've both been saying in speeches for months-- those people most likely have already decided who they are going to vote for. Because it's so hard to imagine someone who's truly "in the middle," I'm guessing the undecided voters are probably those who don't pay much attention to the campaign in general, and so the extent of what they see of the debate will be maybe 10 minutes of it from just flipping through the channels. So both candidates have to keep repeating themselves so that at any time a true undecided voter tunes in, they can get their idea.

Made it an almost painful experience for the decided's at times, but hey.
Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 10:13 PM
One must consider though that in this election, there are VERY few undecided voters. Thus, it is my belief that the debate will have little impact unless someone makes a major gaff.
Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 04:51 AM
Roy for President! XD
Comment posted on October 1st, 2004 at 08:29 PM
Iraq is a big country. It might be bad some places, and good in others. Problem is, I don't think we're getting the proper news.
Comment posted on October 1st, 2004 at 06:20 PM
Roy, what's going on? Why the link to the WSJ reporter?
Comment posted on October 1st, 2004 at 11:51 PM
Why not? The editor backed up the story, so there is truth to it. If it's true, then it's definitely something that needs to be examined :P
Comment posted on October 1st, 2004 at 05:08 PM
Here we get a chance to actually hear from the two candidates what
they stand for. It's a very good opportunity for the Americans who are

I actually thought the debate was very informative. Just because someone didn't get what they want out of it, doesn't mean it wasn't worthwhile. =)

I agree with bert with Bush limiting the solutions concerning Iraq. Everyone seem to agree that it has become a very hard situtation but noone seems to have a good answer. Why didn't Bush think this part out?
Comment posted on October 1st, 2004 at 06:08 PM
The debate was somewhat informative.
It showed that the most common word in Bush's vocabulary is "Hard"

If i weren't paying attention to this race and just "met" these candidate for the first time.. I would vote for Kerry.. No questions asked.
Bush stammered, Bush stuttered, and bush looked confused. Not in any way shape or form did he instill any confidence in me about his ability to lead. He but in and made stupid ass comments.. and then he also broke rules that he agreed to.

Things that he missed. He could have commented that despite his 90% resources committed to Iraq.. that 75% of the most wanted terrorists have been brought to justice.
And perhaps that this would not have been accomplished had we not gone into Iraq. I think he missed the boat on this.

It showed the Kerry uses the same propoganda numbering as Karl Rove and the rest of the republicans. The most disturbing thing is that he spit out a number "about 40."

The hell was that pottery barn comment? That was dumb.. i bet at least 50% of america is too poor to know what pottery barn is. Yes.. I am serious.

Talking about Ruwanda when addressed about the Sudan Civil war? *sigh* John.. people don't even know Sudan is in african, let alone at war.

He showed people that he was very cool and wrote a book. Congrats you just came off like an elitist jackass to the majority of the public.

Though he did have a great comment about capturing bin laden. "we outsourced that job." It' was great.

So anyway.. I still disagree with jinshil. This debate was awful.
It wasn't a debate. It was an expression of opinions. Not once were they able to ask each other questions. Lehrer threw softballs and Kerry, and his digs at Bush were not hard enough.
Most importantly.. When asked about his plan.. Bush didn't say anything and Kerry pointed to his website, where surprise... I STILL can't find a plan of any semblence.

So, in conclusion, my vote is still going the way of Jesse Ventura.
Comment posted on October 1st, 2004 at 07:58 PM
<a href=""></a>

is that what you were looking for?

anyway, i still think that this debate is heck of a lot better and more informative than the national conventions, ads, and news clips so far. =b
Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 03:09 AM
did you read it?
<b>Launch And Lead A New Era Of Alliances</b>
The threat of terrorism demands alliances on a global scale - to utilize every available resource to get the terrorists before they can strike at us. As president, John Kerry will lead a coalition of the able - because no force on earth is more able than the United States and its allies.

the plan involves HOW we get the allies and how we LEAD the allies.

<b> Modernize The World's Most Powerful Military To Meet New Threats </b>
I'm going to quote the very first line from this one. oh wait.. there only is 1 line.

John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world's most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.

my question.. Ok.. what is this plan? You have a plan.. GREAT.. what is it?

<b>Deploy All That Is In America's Arsenal </b>
The war on terror cannot be won by military might alone. As president, John Kerry will deploy all the forces in America's arsenal - our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, and the appeal of our values and ideas - to make America more secure and prevent a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

you realize in the debate that he said we were overextending ourselves right? pick a side johnny.

<b>Free America From Its Dangerous Dependence On Mideast Oil</b>
To secure our full independence and freedom, we must free America from its dangerous dependence on Mideast oil. By tapping American ingenuity, we can achieve that goal while growing our economy and protecting our environment.

that's a great plan john. What say you give me a way to make solar panels more than 8% efficient. what's that you say? You have a plan? ok.. what is it? use Alaskan oil? Fission? Use one of Al Gores OTHER inventions?

look jinshil. I'm not saying bush is great.. I am far from defending this guy. But God... if we could just have one HALFWAY decent non-politician...

i mean serious.. Jesse Ventura is looking pretty damn good right now aint he?
Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 12:33 AM
No offense, but there is very little substance in that link. More importantly though, he completely dodges the issue of Iraq, or more specifically, what he plans to do if he were to become president.

Blaming the President is good and all, but if he doesn't give any real alternative, then why the heck should I vote for him?
Comment posted on October 2nd, 2004 at 08:28 AM
Well, I guess we just have to pick the "lesser evil" then. I was just pointing out a link. I haven't bashed Bush, I haven't endorsed Kerry in any of my comments so far. You guys are saying both candidates pretty much suck, but hey, they're the only choices we have. *shrug*
Comment posted on October 1st, 2004 at 03:41 PM
2 responses
1. the debates sucked.

2. the WSJ reporter is right.. it is bad. But what does she propose we do about it? Selfishly pull out our troops and let the citizens live in fear? How bout bomb the whole place? What about sweep through with guns and tanks and kill anything that stands in our way. Better yet.. let the iraqis fend for themselves. Yeah.. great idea...

Unfortunately, i really only 2 two possible solutions. All terrorists are dead or.. All followers of western thought are dead. That's why Bush sucks.. because he made those the only solutions to end the violence.