2nd Prez debate - did anyone else catch this...?

[Petra]

Early in the debate (which I'm only just finding the time to now watch), Bush answered a question with:

"After 9/11, we had to recognize that when we saw a threat, we must take it seriously before it comes to hurt us. In the old days, we'd see a threat and we could deal with it if we felt like it or not."


You could deal with it if you felt like it?!! :eek:


So, is that to say that he didn't feel like taking intelligence reports regarding and leading up to Sept 11 seriously? He allowed it to happen because dealing with it was not something he could be bothered with at the time?

WTF?!

[Petra]

Ooops. This was supposed to be tagged onto Goliath's "Round II" thread as a reply, not as a thread on it's own.

Sorry 'bout that. :blush:

[Cool Hand]

Yeah, I caught it too, and several other blunders like it. I chalked it up to W's poor speaking skills and his tendency to produce great bloopers. I had some sense of what he meant to say, as I suspect did others. It looks much worse in print than it sounded in speech. The President simply is a poor public speaker. His father was not much better.

Compared to Presidents Reagan and Clinton, most Presidents sound like terrible speakers. Actually, Reagan blundered fairly often, but the press dubbed him "The Great Communicator" because he had a wonderful way of coining and delivering catchy phrases (thanks most often to Peggy Noonan) and a terrific manner about him. People just naturally liked him as a person, even if they disagreed strongly with his views. Reagan also had a terrific sharp and quick wit.

Clinton is a great speaker. He is highly skilled and practiced at it, and apparerently has a great natural fluency and facility with language, and with non-verbal communication as well.

Even the great orator Presidents of the past century such as FDR and JFK would most likely measure poorly next to Clinton. Although JFK did debate Richard Nixon on live television, his style seems awkward and stilted compared to how candidates are expected to perform today, speaking in short, easily digestible sound bites.

FDR and JFK gave great speeches. Giving grand monologue speeches is much different from responding quickly to questions and giving great sound bites, however. I suspect neither FDR or JFK were practiced or skilled at the latter. Clinton, in contrast, is great at grand oratory and at responding quickly and effectively on his feet.

Cool Hand

[Goliath]

Yep, I caught it, too, luna.

You know, it's strange...when I watched the second debate drunk out of my mind, I seem to catch more of the "Bush-isms" than when I'm sober...I'm not sure why this is, but it's probably because I might tend to unconsciously "gloss over" them while sober, realizing what he means instead of looking at what he says.

But when hearing him speak while drunk, I just tend to yell a lot and throw various wrappers/pieces of paper/etc. in the direction of the TV. :D

[Jewels]

The one that made me angry was when he brought up Dread Scott. This apparently is "Code" to tell his christian right wing base that he wont put in a judge in the supreme court that will support Roe Vs.Wade. If the man is so damn forthright and goes around saying, "you know where i stand", why didnt he just answer that he wouldnt support a Judge that supports a womans right to choose? This man makes me crazy. I really am starting to believe that if he gets another 4 years, he will somehow make it impossible for anyone other than a Republican to be elected. Dont ask me how, but i feel it in my heart. Who would have thought at the start of this that he could actually say we invaded Iraq because of a Oil for food scandel and that he wouldnt be laughed right out of the white house? If he can pull that off, he will be able to make Dems second class citizens who are only worth a 1/2 vote or something like that.

[HelenM]

Who would have thought at the start of this that he could actually say we invaded Iraq because of a Oil for food scandel and that he wouldnt be laughed right out of the white house?

I don't really understand how he's getting away with that either.

Helen

[D. Scarlatti]

Maybe people take comfort in being lied to. I can't think of any other explanation.

[Shake]

I just caught the last 15 minutes or so on the radio.

It was when they were fielding audience questions. I thought Kerry's response to the question about abortion was well-answered. He discussed not pushing his faith on the American people and allowing women to have the right to choose. What happened next got me laughing. Not quite verbatim:
"Mr. President, you have xx seconds to respond."
"I'm still trying to figure out what he said." <== huh?

Me: Were you even listening, Mr. President?
Yeah, this is the guy I want in the White House for another 4 years ... NOT!

[Shake]

From one of the links in liv's thread Bush's Dred Scott Idiocy (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=703):
I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Personal opinion? I think any judge (especially one picked to serve on the SCOTUS) worth his/her salt would be able to see that the phrase is un-Constitutional, and have the sense to vote for its removal no matter what their personal opinion is.

[Petra]

"Mr. President, you have xx seconds to respond."
"I'm still trying to figure out what he said." <== huh?



Yeah, I caught that too. First thing that popped into my mind was that if Bush didn't understand what Kerry had said, then he is a dumbass.

Why is a lazy, dangerous dumbass allowed to be President of the US, arguably the most powerful position in the world? Hell, I wouldn't let him run me a bath, let alone a business or a country!