10.06.2004
Fact Checking
Ok, I didn't do any of this work on my own, just watched the Daily Show but man are there some good things that they all got wrong yesterday. The most important one to be would be that Cheney cited www.factcheck.com, which takes you to a George Soros website. The actual website is www.factcheck.org. I'd check out both, but the real one is quite good because you actually get an independent look at what they said. There are no biases, just straight up facts about who voted for what and who supported whatever legislation. Sometimes its nice not to have things caught up in partisan politics.
Oh and John Stewart just told the moderator for Friday's debate to ask if Bush meant to invade Iran and not Iraq, because maybe they got the letters confused. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH. John Stewart I love you, thank god MTV gave up on you.
|
Oh and John Stewart just told the moderator for Friday's debate to ask if Bush meant to invade Iran and not Iraq, because maybe they got the letters confused. AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH. John Stewart I love you, thank god MTV gave up on you.
And the winner is...
...I say its a tie. I really think that both potential Veeps did a good job and they were both quite viscious with each other. The polls seem to be undecided too about this one. I think in the grand scheme of things, this debate didn't really matter, except for the Bush camp to have a chance to stop the bleeding for Thursday.
|
10.05.2004
The VP Debate
I'm wholly unsatisfied by this debate. There was a lot of dodging of the actual question or back tracking to to previous questions. Some highlights/comments:
1) Edwards did not talk about the two Americas until his closing statement.
2) There was a point where Dick Cheney was supposed to be talking about why he believed in George W. Bush and why he'd be better then Kerry. He gave the standard response about leadership, etc. The problem with his response is that he did not look in the camera the entire time. In fact he looked down at his hands the entire time.
3) Next point, he (Cheney) has no passion in his voice and he seems to be lacking in conviction. He says his stump lines supporting Bush and Bush's policies, but its like he doesn't believe what he is saying. That was a big contrast between the two candidates. Cheney seems to not have any passion for his job or at maybe it is just because Edwards has a more compassionate voice. I think this could be very important for undecided voters, because really i have no idea why they are still undecided.
4) They stayed very much on message. Each one got their points across. It was nice to actually hear the VPs talk about the issues instead of each other (though that did happen a bit, with attacks on Haliburton, and on Edwards record).
5) Cheney really couldn't defend the Marriage Amendment, in fact he said he was against it and supports states rights and then thanked Edwards for speaking so nicely of his family (kinda weird to seem him be nice).
6) They both were on the attack, which was nice. Neither was afraid to shy away from the negative issues and attack each others records.
Ok, that's all I got for now. I don' t think anyone won, but we'll se how the media spins it. As of right now, its being spun as a draw. I'm gonna watch the Daily Show coverage of this now. My guesses of what he's going to talk about:
-John Edwards breaking the rules
-Cheney's makeup
-grumpy Cheney
-John Edwards sipping lots of water
|
1) Edwards did not talk about the two Americas until his closing statement.
2) There was a point where Dick Cheney was supposed to be talking about why he believed in George W. Bush and why he'd be better then Kerry. He gave the standard response about leadership, etc. The problem with his response is that he did not look in the camera the entire time. In fact he looked down at his hands the entire time.
3) Next point, he (Cheney) has no passion in his voice and he seems to be lacking in conviction. He says his stump lines supporting Bush and Bush's policies, but its like he doesn't believe what he is saying. That was a big contrast between the two candidates. Cheney seems to not have any passion for his job or at maybe it is just because Edwards has a more compassionate voice. I think this could be very important for undecided voters, because really i have no idea why they are still undecided.
4) They stayed very much on message. Each one got their points across. It was nice to actually hear the VPs talk about the issues instead of each other (though that did happen a bit, with attacks on Haliburton, and on Edwards record).
5) Cheney really couldn't defend the Marriage Amendment, in fact he said he was against it and supports states rights and then thanked Edwards for speaking so nicely of his family (kinda weird to seem him be nice).
6) They both were on the attack, which was nice. Neither was afraid to shy away from the negative issues and attack each others records.
Ok, that's all I got for now. I don' t think anyone won, but we'll se how the media spins it. As of right now, its being spun as a draw. I'm gonna watch the Daily Show coverage of this now. My guesses of what he's going to talk about:
-John Edwards breaking the rules
-Cheney's makeup
-grumpy Cheney
-John Edwards sipping lots of water
Are you ready for some football...I mean DEBATING!!!!
For a second there I thought it was Monday night football, then I realized today is Tuesday and that means its time for the Vice Presidential debate.
Edwards v. Cheney.
John v. Dick
Trial Lawyer v. Career Politician
democrat v. Republican
Two Americas v. The person that created two Americas
Too Young to get Drafted v. Draft dodger
Ok, I'm running out of new ones. Point is, this match up should be interesting to say the very least, I mean Cheney is one of the meanest looking people I've ever seen and Edwards is so sweet and huggable. Aside from that, we haven't really seen much of Edwards lately on the stump, so he'll be a breath of fresh air. Plus it'll be nice to hear Cheney defend his comments about another 9/11 happening if Kerry gets elected. So get ready for the mental fisticuffs because tonight is DEBATE NIGHT!
|
Edwards v. Cheney.
John v. Dick
Trial Lawyer v. Career Politician
democrat v. Republican
Two Americas v. The person that created two Americas
Too Young to get Drafted v. Draft dodger
Ok, I'm running out of new ones. Point is, this match up should be interesting to say the very least, I mean Cheney is one of the meanest looking people I've ever seen and Edwards is so sweet and huggable. Aside from that, we haven't really seen much of Edwards lately on the stump, so he'll be a breath of fresh air. Plus it'll be nice to hear Cheney defend his comments about another 9/11 happening if Kerry gets elected. So get ready for the mental fisticuffs because tonight is DEBATE NIGHT!
10.03.2004
Post Debate Polls
Newsweek says:
Kerry 47
Bush 45
CNN/Gallup:
Kerry 49
Bush 49
Nader 1
I know there are other ones out there, but I can't find them online right now.
Every poll I've heard says that Kerry won the first debate. So I guess this is a post debate bounce. I also read somewhere that the post-convention bounce that Bush got is "erased". The only thing that I'm worried about is that Kerry is gonna do something to mess things up in the next couple of debates a la Gore sighing. I think that Kerry may be better at presenting himself though, so we'll see.
|
Kerry 47
Bush 45
CNN/Gallup:
Kerry 49
Bush 49
Nader 1
I know there are other ones out there, but I can't find them online right now.
Every poll I've heard says that Kerry won the first debate. So I guess this is a post debate bounce. I also read somewhere that the post-convention bounce that Bush got is "erased". The only thing that I'm worried about is that Kerry is gonna do something to mess things up in the next couple of debates a la Gore sighing. I think that Kerry may be better at presenting himself though, so we'll see.
Back to the Future as Social Commentary?
Ok, so normally I spend my Sunday afternoons watching some type of a cheesy movie. This Sunday was spent watching some chick flick with Samantha Mathias and Back to the Future. Now, normally I would say no, Back to the Future is just another cheesy 80s movies, and wasn't Michael J Fox so cute in that puffy vest? God, isn't that car soooooooooooo 80s? The thing is, I actually decided to pay some attention to the move this time around. A couple of things struck me as odd this time, even though I've seen it at least 200 hundred times. (My little brother was obsessed with the movie when it came out on video.) So here it goes:
1) Libyan terrorist. Why in the hell would Libyan terrorist go after Dr. Brown? Why where they Libyan and not Iranian? I know that this movie was filmed before Pan Am 103 exploded over Scotland which was eventually proved to be a Libyan act of terrorism. In fact most people originally assumed it was either Syrian or Iranian act of terror. So my question is, what type of terrorism was going on in the US in 1985 that made him think the non-descript Arabic men where Libyan?
2) Now on for suburbia commentary. This movie if you never noticed idealizes the 1950s. It goes back to the myth of perfection that everyone has about the 1950s, that there was this culture of conformity and that everything in the 1950s was perfect. Take for example that the mall where Marty is escaping from the terrorist. When Marty ends up there in the past, it is wonderful, serene, peaceful farmland that is about to be developed. There is no trashy shopping mall there. The director idealizes the pre-development land, the pre-suburban madness that happened and changed the town. There is a reason he picked 30 1955 versus 1965 or 1960 for Marty to travel back to. In 1955 our country was still innocent, Vietnam had not happened, neither had the civil rights movement. Everything that "stole" our national innocence had not yet occurred, so life was still "perfect".
3) Ok the other suburbia commentary is what the downtown looks like when Marty goes back to 1985. There are porn theatres, trash everywhere, homeless man, and a helicopter. So clearly something had gone wrong with our suburbs during the 30 years between 1955 and 1985. Marty knew he was back in home when it was so dirty downtown. In the past it was beautiful and clean downtown, people inhabited the downtown. There were no malls, so people still shopped in down town area. As the future progressed, downtowns became dilapidated and replaced by shopping malls (so many other people have commented on this). The point of all this though, is that this movie really idealizes the 1950s but still loves many things about the future. Marty thinks its cute that swearing in the 1950s is "damn", something that even children say now. Also, the innocence of never really hearing rock and roll before.
Ok, this is unorganized, but I'm going to work on my theory some more.
|
1) Libyan terrorist. Why in the hell would Libyan terrorist go after Dr. Brown? Why where they Libyan and not Iranian? I know that this movie was filmed before Pan Am 103 exploded over Scotland which was eventually proved to be a Libyan act of terrorism. In fact most people originally assumed it was either Syrian or Iranian act of terror. So my question is, what type of terrorism was going on in the US in 1985 that made him think the non-descript Arabic men where Libyan?
2) Now on for suburbia commentary. This movie if you never noticed idealizes the 1950s. It goes back to the myth of perfection that everyone has about the 1950s, that there was this culture of conformity and that everything in the 1950s was perfect. Take for example that the mall where Marty is escaping from the terrorist. When Marty ends up there in the past, it is wonderful, serene, peaceful farmland that is about to be developed. There is no trashy shopping mall there. The director idealizes the pre-development land, the pre-suburban madness that happened and changed the town. There is a reason he picked 30 1955 versus 1965 or 1960 for Marty to travel back to. In 1955 our country was still innocent, Vietnam had not happened, neither had the civil rights movement. Everything that "stole" our national innocence had not yet occurred, so life was still "perfect".
3) Ok the other suburbia commentary is what the downtown looks like when Marty goes back to 1985. There are porn theatres, trash everywhere, homeless man, and a helicopter. So clearly something had gone wrong with our suburbs during the 30 years between 1955 and 1985. Marty knew he was back in home when it was so dirty downtown. In the past it was beautiful and clean downtown, people inhabited the downtown. There were no malls, so people still shopped in down town area. As the future progressed, downtowns became dilapidated and replaced by shopping malls (so many other people have commented on this). The point of all this though, is that this movie really idealizes the 1950s but still loves many things about the future. Marty thinks its cute that swearing in the 1950s is "damn", something that even children say now. Also, the innocence of never really hearing rock and roll before.
Ok, this is unorganized, but I'm going to work on my theory some more.
