Blogcritics: Comments on 2nd Presidential Debate Opinion Compilation

Comment by Vic

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 23:41:23 EDT

Actually it's not my litmus test. I'm not so shallow as to vote for someone based upon just one issue. BTW, context matters, and that comment was indicative of a very immature mind. I remember back when I was much younger, I actually liked "dead baby jokes". Now I don't know how I ever found those funny. Of course marriage and parenthood do tend to change one's perspective on things, and it's like the conversation between Spock and McCoy in Star Trek III... Spock could not intelligently discuss what comes after death with someone who had not experienced it. :-) Thanks, Vic

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 22:16:28 EDT

Vic, Vic, Vic. JR, Duane and Mark are all good at the short, swift stab to the jugular. Besides, when he said farming destroys life, he was right. 'Life,' i.e., matter plus energy directed to functionality, is endlessly recycled. Now, I realize that a segment of the population considers opposing abortion their litmus test for candidates. But, from what I've seen, most folks wary of abortion don't consider it the only issue that matters. So, Shrub will confirm anti-abortion hardliners like you with his rejection of research on fetal stem cells, but Kerry's more nuanced position will appeal to much more of the electorate.

Comment by Rodney Welch

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 21:35:34 EDT

Funny how war supporters don't call themselves pro-war, death penalty supporters don't call themselves pro-death, or Bush supporters don't call themselves pro-rich.

Comment by Vic

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:20:02 EDT

Yeah, the lives of radical Muslims that set off car bombs near children (in their own country or Israel), or murder hundreds of them in a school are just as precious as that of an unborn child. As far as civilians, of course I'm not happy about that, but U.S. troops go out of their way to not harm civilians, while the radicals target civilians. Did I ever state anywhere I was "pro-life"? I'm anti-abortion. Funny how people those on the other side don't use the term "pro-abortion". I guess that just doesn't sound quite as palatable. Vic

Comment by Big Time Patriot

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:08:08 EDT

"Bush is claiming stem cell research calls for the destruction of life. Farming calls for the destruction of life. Maybe the federal government shouldn't fund it." Vic, did you think this statement was making light of the abortion debate? When the whole abortion issue is cloaked in "clarity light" it's hard to take it serious. How many "pro-life" people are happy with the deaths of Iraqi's. What, aren't they life? If you use vague euphemisms that don't hold up to specific instances you are wide open to being made fun of. Are you "pro-life"? Really? OR are you "pro-life, unless you are already born, in which case God says it's okay to blow you up". Don't talk about the sanctity of life and then be voting for a man who let 150 people die in Texas when with a stroke of his pen he could have put them in jail for life instead.

Comment by Vic

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 16:58:28 EDT

JR, You're disgusting. Really. I try to "maintain" on this site, but that was a fucking idiotic thing to say. Vic

Comment by JR

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 16:14:48 EDT

Bush is claiming stem cell research calls for the destruction of life. Farming calls for the destruction of life. Maybe the federal government shouldn't fund it.

Comment by Rodney Welch

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 13:45:30 EDT

The debate forum is so clearly Kerry's turf and so obviously not Bush's. You could tell it in their body language. There was no fear in Kerry at all; he was the picture of confidence. When Bush uttered this or that charge, Kerry was calm, but you could tell he couldn't wait to respond. By contrast, when Kerry started hammering away at Bush, the president looked scared; you could kind of see the mad scramble in his little mind to remember what memorized fact went where. As the debate went on, he seemed to just keep shrinking; his answers, such as they were, were always short and half-delivered. Kerry pummeled him; this wasn't even close.

Comment by Vic

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:16:31 EDT

BTW, I just loved Kerry's meandering response to the abortion question. Bush's response was great: "What did he just say?". Vic

Comment by Vic

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 11:15:36 EDT

The stem cell issue; Bush is highly vulnerable on this issue and Kerry is hitting it home. Bush is claiming stem cell research calls for the destruction of life. Mr President, there are other forms of stem cells than embyrionic -- adult and umbilical cord, neither one bringing up any moral issues whatsoever. Um, no. Bush is not against adult and umbilical stem cell research, only research based on embryonic stem cells. You did *watch* the debate, right? Vic

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:20:06 EDT

I have to agree with William Kristol (co-founder of The Project for the New American Century and son of neocon icon Irving Kristol) on Fox Faux News panel immediately after the debate: Bush did better than in Miami but Kerry won. Mort Kondracke (Roll Call) agreed with Kristol, Fred Barnes (Weekly Standard) disagreed (but seemed a bit subdued about it). My call is Kerry 48, Bush 45. Bush was not as bad as in Miami, but his forcefulness seemed the insistence of a loser who knows he's a loser so starts shouting to make his points. The biggest Bush error was claiming that 75% of Al Qaeda has already been captured. The script read - and he meant to say - "75% of the Al Qaeda leadership has been captured." Note that even the correct statment is misleading propaganda. 75% of the leadership amounts to about 18 people, while Al Qaeda is estimated to have about 18,000 members. But, hey, he used a number.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sat, 9 Oct 2004 08:27:08 EDT

The debate looked like such a plunge for the other side, it was frightening. Kerry cited Dick Lugar (R-IN) twice, while Bush cited former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin! Since such focus was on Iraq, I couldn't help but come away reinforced that both Bush and Kerry are in favor of being the world's cop, and that future wars with so-called rogue nations will happen under either of their Administrations over WMDs. Bush is plainly for these things. Kerry if for them in a muddy way. He criticized Bush on many fronts, but didn't stick to his 'wrong war, wrong time, wrong place' reasoning, which has been proven correct. Instead Kerry would pour more money and American troops into Iraq. Amazing.